The aim of the paper is clear. The findings of the paper and how they did it are clear. We find the title informative and relevant The references are relevant, recent and correctly referenced. Keys studies included are appropriate.

In a total of 13 references in the introduction, after a brief reminder on coronaviruses, the authors recall the previous epidemics due to coronaviruses, particularly the Severe Acute Respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Among these references, there are two systematic reviews by WHO on these previous epidemics (references 7 and 8).

The research question is clearly formulated. It is about describing the different aspects of the new epidemic (clinical, biological, radiological, treatment and prognosis of the disease).

A box provides an update on the research context: evidence before the study, its added value and the implications for the new findings.

In summary

The study protocol was approved by 2 ethics committees. Informed patient consent was sought and obtained.

The subjects of the study are not a sample. 59 subjects (suspected cases) were tested, 41 of whom were infected.

Operational definitions and methods for measuring variables have been carefully described. The specimens tested were listed in full.

The data were collected in a standardized manner. The validity and reliability of the data have been strengthened by calling on two independent researchers to double check the data collected.

The statistical tests used have been indicated precisely with their significance level.

The treatment protocols used have also been indicated.

Potential conflicts of interest have been clarified.

Thus, the study protocol can be replicated without difficulty.

The results are clearly presented in 3 tables and 3 figures. The text explains the results summarized in the tables and figures. The statistical significance thresholds are obvious.

The discussion recalls the main purpose of the study and the main findings.

Recommendations are made for better patient management.

Comparisons are made with previous epidemics of SARS and MERS.

She suggests further research.

She reports on limitations that do not appear to be "fatal". It reports on the limited number of cases which excludes any abusive generalization, which also limits the value of the significance thresholds of the statistical analysis.