Comparing the accuracy of two diagnostic methods for detection of light Schistosoma haematobium infection in an elimination setting in Wolaita Zone, South Western Ethiopia.

Reagent urinalysis dipstick and filtration have been recommended diagnostic methods for the detection of urogenital schistosomiasis. However, the accurate diagnosis of light infections using these methods presents a major challenge. This study evaluates the diagnosis accuracy of light infection with Schistosoma haematobium in study participants living in Wolaita Zone, an area targeted for sustainable control of Schistosomiasis, and ultimately interrupt transmission. Urine samples were collected from children and adults in surveys carried out during baseline and longitudinal sentinel site surveys conducted from 2018 to 2020. All urine samples were tested using a reagent urinalysis dipstick test (Haemastix) to detect microhaematuria with reference urine filtration technique as a proxy for S. haematobium infection. Sensitivity and specificity were determined in diagnosing urogenital schistosomiasis. Cohen's Kappa statistics was done for the agreement of these diagnostic methods. A total of 12,102 participants were enrolled in the current baseline study. Among them, 285 (2.35%) samples tested positive for microhaematuria and 21 (0.20%) positive for S. haematobium eggs. A total of 4,357 samples were examined in year 1 and year 2 using urine dipsticks, and urine filtration 172 (3.95%) and 2 (0.05%) were positive for microhaematuria and S. haematobium eggs. The reagent urinalysis dipsticks showed the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing light intensity of infection,100% (95% CI:85.18-100.00) and 97.4% (95% CI: 97.10-97.60), respectively. There is a slight agreement between the two methods (Kappa = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.18). The present study revealed very low prevalence and light intensity of S. haematobium infections. The study also highlights that the dipstick test is considered a useful adjunct diagnostic tool for population-based control of urogenital schistosomiasis.

Introduction

Human schistosomiasis affects almost 240 million people worldwide, with more than 700 million people at risk in endemic areas. The infection is prevalent in tropical and subtropical areas, particularly within poor communities without potable water and adequate sanitation [1]. In Ethiopia, both intestinal and urinary schistosomiasis are endemic, with the majority of Schistosome infections caused by S. mansoni [2, 3]. Limited studies have reported the distribution of urogenital schistosomiasis in Ethiopia. What is available, reports a highly focal distribution, predominantly in both the northeastern regions, following the middle and upper Awash River Valley [4, 5], and in eastern regions proximal to the lower Wabe-Shebele valleys [6, 7]. There are also reports of infection in western regions such as Kurmuk on the Ethio-Sudan border [8, 9]. The spread of the disease has been linked to population movement, and fluctuations in water contact behaviour resultant from both natural geological events, and anthropogenic interventions [10].

Infection of S. haematobium affects both the urinary and genital tracts, with chronic infection resulting in fibrosis of the bladder and ureter that in severe cases can cause bladder cancer and renal failure [11]. S. haematobium-associated microhaematuria results from the deposition of the parasite’s spiny eggs in the submucosa, causing bladder lesions, the detection of microhaematuria is performed using a reagent urinalysis dipstick [12, 13].

The most common methods for diagnosing urogenital schistosomiasis are reagent urinalysis dipstick, urine filtration, and point-of-care urine circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) assay examination of urine samples. The reagent urinalysis dipstick has long been recommended as a relatively inexpensive and accurate proxy for the detection of S. haematobium infection [14]. Following detection of microhaematuria using the dipstick, the diagnosis of S. haematobium is confirmed through urine filtration and microscopy to identify and quantify the presence of S. haematobium eggs in urine [15]. Several studies confirmed reagent urinalysis dipstick against standard urine filtration and detection of microhaematuria is an adjunct for estimation of urogenital schistosomiasis and related morbidity [16, 17].

The current Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) recommendations for schistosomiasis control is based upon mass praziquantel administration of endemic woredas (districts), targeting school-aged children (SAC) or high-risk communities [18]. Parasitological mapping conducted by the Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) informs the FMoH with the endemic woredas requiring treatment [19]. This mapping is dependent on the use of reagent urinalysis dipstick and urine filtration to determine each woreda’s endemicity status. For the current national program use it would be essential to know the sensitivity and accuracy of the test, determining the epidemiological status of woredas, especially in low prevalence settings [19, 20].

The low sensitivity and specificity of diagnostics for other NTDs, such as soil-transmitted helminths, in low prevalence settings has been noted in previous publications [21], presenting a major hindrance in accurately recording low or no parasite prevalence. However, there is currently a paucity of information regarding the efficacy of reagent urinalysis dipstick as a diagnostic tool in low diagnostic settings for schistosomiasis. The available data of its diagnostic performance is reported with varying sensitivity and accuracy by different research groups [18, 20]. These potential limitations associated with reagent urinalysis dipstick in low prevalence regions [22], may impose a challenge for accurate diagnosis of microhaematuria. This morbidity associated with light infections should be taken seriously, as the host’s immune response to eggs, not the number of worm pairs, causes schistosomiasis pathology [23].

In Ethiopia, few studies have been conducted to compare the performance of reagent urinalysis dipstick against urine filtration in different transmission settings [5, 24]. This study will seek to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of reagent urinalysis strips, urine filtration, and POC-CCA and thus their suitability in large-scale mapping and evaluation activities for detecting microhaematuria for S. haematobium infections. This work has been conducted as part of the work of the Geshiyaro project, described previously by Mekete et al [25].

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study was conducted as part of the Geshiyaro project, which was ethically approved by Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI). Permission letters have been secured from Regional, Zonal Health Offices, and Educational bureaus. They have been shared with the district Health Office and community administrators and school directors. Informed consent was obtained from study participants after detailed information was provided in the local language on the aims and procedures of the study, and documented electronically through a data collection form. Verbal consent was obtained from parents or guardians on behalf of any enrolled children.

Study sites

The study was conducted within the Wolaita Zone, in the Southern Nations Nationalities People Regional (SNNPR) state of Ethiopia, located 300 kilometers south of Addis Ababa., SNNPR consists of 22 districts or ‘woredas’ (the smallest functional unit of the Ethiopian health care system, covering a population of at least 100,000), and has a population of approximately 1.9 million. The Wolaita Zone is boarded to the southwest by the Omo River, and in the east by the Bilate river and Lake Abaya. Urogenital schistosomiasis data is not available in Wolaita Zone.

Sample size determination

Sample size calculations

The sample size was estimated based on the probability that at least 70% of woredas had a true schistosomiasis prevalence of 15% (classified as 10% or over), under the assumption that the lower focality of schistosomiasis often leads to underestimated prevalence due to insufficient sampling. Due to varying number of kebeles per woreda, between 26% and 75% of kebeles were surveyed within each woreda [23], with a higher proportion of kebeles being surveyed in small woreda.

Number of kebeles and number of individuals

A cross-sectional baseline mapping survey took place, consisting of 13,000 individuals. One hundred and thirty-seven kebeles from selected woredas were randomly identified. Within each selected kebele, a parasitological mapping survey was conducted, sampling 100 individuals per community, stratified for equal sample size (20 individuals) by age grouping (preschool-age children (pre-SAC) (1–4 years), SAC (5–14 years), 15–20 years, 21–35 years, 36+ years) and sex, were randomly selected in each kebele. In addition, a longitudinal sentinel site cohort of 4,500 individuals, were followed across 30 kebeles, whereby 150 individuals were selected in age and sex stratified groupings as presented above, and parasitological data were monitored on an annual basis.

Field procedures

Data detailing participant demographics and WaSH infrastructure access were collected from consenting participants during the baseline and sentinel site surveys. Biological samples (including 10ml urine) were collected and logged against individual barcoding system to link participant meta-data with parasitological mapping data. The collected samples were transported to the nearby health center for laboratory analysis. Electronic data from each survey was collected in the field using Samsung J5 smartphones. Questionnaires were coded and uploaded using the SurveyCTO sever. The microhaematuria, urine filtration and POC-CCA test results were recorded on paper laboratory forms, and later transcribed electronically to SurveyCTO at the end of each day.

Detection of urine for microhematuria

Reagent urinalysis dipsticks (Haemastix®, Siemens, Healthcare Diagnostics, United Kingdom) were used following the manufacturer’s instructions. Principally, each dipstick was dipped into the barcode urine container for 5 seconds. After 1 minute, the resulting colour change of the strip was compared with manufacturer’s diagnostic colour chart. Intensity of colour change is proportional to the amount of blood in the urine, and results were scored into 6 diagnostic categories; negative, trace non-haemolysed, trace haemolysed, +, ++, +++ according to the manufacturer recommendations. Trace-positive reagent urinalysis strips were considered positive (S1 Appendix).

Urine filtration technique

Two microscope filtration slides were prepared from a single urine sample. Each urine sample was rigorously shaken to ensure mobilization of any eggs present, then 10 ml of urine was drawn into a syringe and passed out against a nylon filter with a pore size of 20 μm, twice. The two prepared urine filters were placed on microscope slides, using a drop of Lugol’s iodine to stain S.haematobium eggs for identification under the microscope [26]. Each slide was read by different laboratory technician. The presence and quantity of S. haematobium eggs was recorded for each microscope slide, and finally reported as an average of two slides as egg count/10 ml urine. A participant was considered = negative if no S. haematobium eggs were detected on either slide Any discordant results between laboratory technicians were re-examined by a senior laboratory technician.

POC-CCA cassette test

The POC-CCA cassette test was blindly performed on all urine samples according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Rapid Medical Diagnostics, South Africa). One drop of urine was added to the sample well, and test results were read 20 minutes afterwards. In instances where control bands did not develop, the cassette test was considered invalid, a second cassette test was undertaken. The valid POC-CCA tests were scored as negative (only control line), trace (trace test line), +1 (test line weakly visible), +2 (test line same opacity as the control line) and +3 (test line darker than control line). Trace POC-CCA test results were considered as positive.

Data analysis

S. haematobium infection intensity was assessed using the WHO classification, and classed into low infestation (1–49 eggs/10 ml of urine) and high infestation ≥50 eggs/10 ml urine [26]. Data were analysed using R version 4.0.4 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Diagnostic performance of urine reagent urinalysis dipstick was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy. Using the urine filtration method as the gold standard, sensitivity of urine reagent urinalysis dipstick was calculated as the proportion of positives that were correctly identified when compared with the standard test. The specificity of the test was calculated as the proportion of negatives that were correctly identified when compared with the diagnostic reference test. Positive predictive value (PPV) describes the probability that a disease is present when the test is positive. The negative predictive value (NPV) describes the probability that the disease is not present when the test is negative. The agreement between the urine filtration and reagent urinalysis dipstick was determined using Cohen’s kappa (κ)-statistics. The accuracy was the overall probability that a study participant was correctly classified by both diagnostic tests. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

As shown in Fig 1 below, a total of 16,780 children and adults were enrolled to participate in the baseline and cross-sectional surveys conducted between 2018 and 2020. During baseline mapping survey, 12,102 samples were examined using dipsticks. Among them, 285 (2.35%) samples were positive for microhaematuria and 21 (0.17%) positive for S. haematobium eggs by urine filtration.

Fig 1

Flowchart of study phase participation, sample provision and diagnostic tests performed during the study period.

A total of 501 urine samples were examined in 2019 sentinel sites Year 1 survey. 10 samples (2.00%) were positive for microhematuria, and all of them were negative for S. haematobium infection. A total of 3,875 individuals participate in the sentinel sites Year 2 survey conducted in 2020, and 3,856 underwent for dipstick test. 162 samples (4.20%) were positive for microhaematuria, and 2 (0.05%) were positive for S. haematobium. Overall, 23 individuals were positive (0.14%) by urine filtration diagnostics. Of these, 21 (0.13%) individuals were positive by POC-CCA cassette test.

The prevalence of microhaematuria infection based on reagent urinalysis dipstick was comparable between males (49.1%) and females (50.9%), and across the different age groups pre-SAC (17.1%), SAC (25.0%), 15 to 20 (22.2%), 21 to 35 (18.9%) and 35+(16.9%) years. The prevalence of microhaematuria was higher in SAC (4–15 years age) compared to other age groups as shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Prevalence of microhaematuria and S haematobium by study phase age category (left panel and sex (right panel).

The sensitivity and specificity of reagent urinalysis dipstick was 100% (95% CI:85.2%–100.00%) and 97.4% (95% CI: 97.1%-97.6%), respectively. The PPV was low (5.03%), and NPV was high (100%) as shown in Table 1. All infections were classed as light infection by urine filtration (1–49 egg/10 ml urine). A false-positive reagent urinalysis strip test result was noted in 457(2.8%) of the study participants.

Table 1

Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the reagent dipstick method for S haematobium in study participants when filtration results are considered reference test.

Urine filtration	Microhematuria
Positive	Positive	Negative	Total
	23	0	23
Negative	434	16002	16436
Total	457	16002	16459
Sensitivity of dipstick	100%
Specificity of dipstick	97.4%
Positive predictive value (PPV)	5.03%
Negative predictive value (NPV)	100%
Accuracy	97.4%

The reagent urinalysis dipstick testing showed a better diagnostic at trace (trace non-haemolysed and haemolysed) compared to other microhaematuria range, as shown in Table 2. The agreement between the two methods in diagnosing for the presence of microhaematuria and S. haematobium egg was slight (Kappa = 0.09 (95%CI: 0.01–0.18). That is, the likelihood of detecting a negative/positive result is unlikely.

Table 2

Association of urine filtration and microhematuria.

Microhaematuria positive	n(%)	Urine filtration, n(%)	p-value
trace non-haemolysed	122(31.7)	1(4.3)	0.997
trace haemolysed	48(12.5%)	4(17.4)	0.997
+	109(28.3)	10(43.5)	0.997
++	52(13.5)	5(21.7)	0.997
+++	54(14.0)		0.996
Total	385	23

Discussion

This study was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of reagent urinalysis dipstick for microhaematuria in a S. haematobium in low prevalence setting. The quick nature of the laboratory diagnostic, paired with its low cost, makes the urinalysis reagent dipstick suitable for estimating S. haematobium prevalence in a community-level diagnostic screening surveys for schistosomiasis control programs.

The Cohen’s Kappa statistic between the two diagnostics, reagent urinalysis dipstick and urine filtration, revealed a slight agreement (kappa = 0.09). Robinson et al inferred that the reagent urinalysis dipstick test showed higher sensitivity than that of urine filtration in assumed low S. haematobium prevalence settings [27]. This study similarly concludes that the sensitivity and specificity of the reagent urinalysis dipstick is a good diagnostic tool for low S. haematobium prevalence settings [28]. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that trace positive microhaematuria (considered as trace non-haemolysed and haemolysed results) provided good diagnostic sensitivity, corroborating the results of a previous study also conducted in Ethiopia [25].

According to WHO classification, this study also revealed that the prevalence and infection intensity categorized as light infection (cut-off point < 50 eggs per 10 mL), establishing infection intensity can help in guiding the future treatment strategies [26]. In this study, some microhaematuria results could not be associated with S. haematobium infection through reference egg filtration. This is most likely due to either low prevalence setting or contamination of urine by menses, genital mutilation, menstrual blood or pregnancy in females; these are previously established confounding factors that can affect urine reagent urinalysis dipstick results [16, 29–31]. The combination of confounding factors indicate that reagent urinalysis dipstick cannot be used as a single diagnostic tool when confirming infection of S. haematobium and a continued combination of urine filtration is needed.

This study also shows that the PPV was low (5.03%) in low prevalence settings indicating that the majority microhaematuria positive individuals in this locality are not related to urogenital schistosomiasis. The predictive values are generally reliant on the prevalence of endemicity [32], lower PPV and the higher NPV indicating the lower prevalence of the disease in given locations [33, 34]. Similarly, our findings also showed low PPV and high NPV. These might indicate an association between the predictive values and endemicity.

Urine filtration alone revealed prevalence of S. haematobium in 23 (0.14%,) individuals and reagent urinalysis dipstick testing for microhaematuria was found in 172 (1.03%). However, a study conducted in western Ethiopia [8], with high transmission area, urine filtration and microhaematuria were reported 57.8% and 68.6%, respectively. The geographic variance of S. haematobium prevalence in Ethiopia again indicates the highly focal infective presence of Schistosoma, throughout endemic countries [18].

Children had greater prevalence microhaematuria than adults with the same infection intensity [29, 30]. Similarly, we found microhaematuria was highest in school age group (4–15 years age) than adults. This may suggest that adult experience release less blood in response to parasite egg deposition around urinary tract [35].

The POC-CCA assay has also shown effective in diagnosing urinary schistosomiasis [36]. However, studies on the use of POC-CCA for S. haematobium present conflicting results. Previous study found POC-CCA less sensitive and specific than the urine filtration and dipstick methods in the diagnosis of S. haematobium infection in endemic areas [37]. In contrast a study by Said et al. [38] observed a significantly higher sensitivity in the diagnosis of both S. haematobium and S. mansoni by this method as compared to egg counts in urine and stool, respectively. Similarly, the current study found twenty-three positive S. haematobium eggs observed by urine filtration test, which was also detected in 21 (0.13%) positives with the POC-CCA test. This suggests that the result of POC-CCA tests were considered similar to the results of urine filtration. The definitive use of a single test to diagnose S. haematobium is still waiting verification. POC-CCA is a frequently used antigen detection test, however, numerous studies have revealed a mixed outlook into the replacement of microscopy with antigen test alone [39, 40]. The field-based diagnosis of S. haematobium indicates that a combined approach is still necessary, using antigen, dipstick and microscopy to achieve the highest degree of sensitivity to confirm infection. The egg output of S. haematobium shows a considerable day-to-day fluctuation of released egg in urine could vary within days [41]. Thus, the follow-up diagnosis or repeated urine sampling could improve sensitivity and increase the probability of detecting light infections.

This study relies only on a single day urine sample, hence repeated daily sampling of urine may be of consideration when surveying low prevalence settings to confirm potential transmission break of the disease [42].

Conclusion

The results of this study indicates that the reagent urinalysis dipstick is considered a useful adjunct for community-based control in urogenital schistosomiasis areas. The preliminary confirmation of microhaematuria followed by urine filtration can aide in the efficiency of parasitological surveys in region-wide baseline and sentinel site surveys. However, the undetected S. haematobium may be due to the lack of sensitivity of widely used urine filtration tool. To further increase the evaluation of the diagnostic performance of reagent urinalysis dipsticks, its comparison against molecular diagnostic workflows would help in particularly in regions with targeted transmission break interventions [43], evaluation the accuracy performance of reagent urinalysis dipstick method, is therefore crucial for rapid diagnosis of urogenital schistosomiasis in areas of light transmission settings.

Results of number of individuals detected by POC-CCA test in Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia.

(RTF)

Click here for additional data file.

Minimum data set.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 May 2021

PONE-D-21-07166

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy for detection of light Schistosoma haematobium infection in an elimination setting in Wolaita Zone, South Western Ethiopia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammed,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that as submitted it does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria in its present form. The subject topic is of significance and we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised during the review process. Please note, your revised manuscript will undergo further review before reaching a final decision.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days from the date of this letter. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to carefully revised and edited manuscript for further consideration.

Kind regards,

Nirbhay Kumar, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

5. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified how verbal consent was documented and witnessed.

6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

7. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

9. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[ The authors would like to thank the study participants and data collectors, supervisors, funders, zone and weredahealth offices and local guides. ]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The authors received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study is a relevant comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of detecting light Schistosoma haematobium infections which would go a long way towards addressing shortcomings in the monitoring and evaluation of intervention programs. The study compares the urinalysis dipstick method and the urine filtration method (reference gold-standard) statistically using a significantly large study population over a period of two years. The study was well designed to compare the two methods which revealed significantly different outcomes in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The study addresses a very relevant question of the accuracy of dipstick method and the possibility of its use as a proxy or adjunct diagnostic tool for the more involving and less sensitive gold-standard filtration method. (Continue to attachment)

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is a study on two diagnostic techniques for the detection of low prevalence of Schistosoma haematobium infection. The reviewer's comments have provided and they attached here with this submission

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Peer Review PONE-D-21-07166.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Reviewer comment to Author 04222021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Aug 2021

We respond the reviewers comments point by point

Submitted filename: letter and Respond to reviwers a point by point response.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Feb 2022

Submitted filename: Second Reviewer comment to Author 02032022.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Mar 2022

we are response the reviewer and editor comments

Submitted filename: Letter and Response to editor-23-03-2022.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Apr 2022

Comparing the accuracy of two diagnostic methods for detection of light Schistosoma haematobium infection in an elimination setting in Wolaita Zone, South Western Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-07166R2

Dear Dr. Hussein Mohammed,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wannaporn Ittiprasert, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the concerns in my previous review. Most of the typographical errors have been corrected and the statistical analyses have been improved upon. The manuscript is a major improvement on the previous versions

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mobolaji Okulate

21 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-07166R2

Comparing the accuracy of two diagnostic methods for detection of light Schistosoma haematobium infection in an elimination setting in Wolaita Zone, South Western Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Mohammed:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Wannaporn Ittiprasert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE