Clustering Disease of Clostridioides Difficile Infection: Implication for the Management in Internal Medicine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aimed to review of researches on management and control of clustering CDI. This is good topic needing to be addressed well. I would like to give the comments as below:

1. The abstract lacks substantive progress content that engages readers. Although it reads smoothly, it feels like it has been generated by a machine.

2. Change "Clostridium difficile" to "Clostridioides difficile".

3. Include a research analysis on the cost-effectiveness of different treatment measures, particularly focusing on studies involving FMT.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This paper aimed to review of researches on management and control of clustering CDI. This is good topic needing to be addressed well. I would like to give the comments as below:

1. The abstract lacks substantive progress content that engages readers. Although it reads smoothly, it feels like it has been generated by a machine.

R: According to the suggestion of the reviewer the abstract has been changed

2. Change "Clostridium difficile" to "Clostridioides difficile".

R: According to the suggestion of the reviewer the name "Clostridium difficile” has been modified to "Clostridioides difficile"

3. Include a research analysis on the cost-effectiveness of different treatment measures, particularly focusing on studies involving FMT.

R: According to the suggestion of the reviewer the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of different treatment measures, particularly focusing on studies involving FMT has been added

Reviewer 2 Report

The author did an amazing review. The review for medical and clinical researchers would be greatly beneficial. The future direction part gives the review another mark. But some points need to be addressed,  

1. 1. A short introductory part is missing. Author could add and increase the quality.  

2. 2. A chart diagram of the overall review could help readers for better understand.

English language is fine. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The author did an amazing review. The review for medical and clinical researchers would be greatly beneficial. The future direction part gives the review another mark. But some points need to be addressed, 

1. A short introductory part is missing. Author could add and increase the quality.

R: According to the suggestion of the reviewer an introduction has been added to the text

2. A chart diagram of the overall review could help readers for better understand.

R: According to the suggestion of the reviewer, a chart diagram has been added to the text