Title: The title is clear and there is not a critic for this and the same expresses the real aim of the article. Abstract: The abstract can be considered an article summary. This part is well written and clear and really explained the results related to dengue 4 specificity and sensitivity in the analyzed technician. References: The references are specific for the theme once, the article was about comparative dengue serotypes and different immunochromatographic methods. Furthermore, the group uses the best references for this time, and, they were not tendencious. There are no mistakes in references.

The introduction is clear and exposes the gap for tests using the last Dengue serotype isolated. The sequence presented to describe the problem is in a good format So, the authors only need to rewrite long paragraphs that only and put them together to explain the small number of articles in the area and the controversial results. Many parts could be used in the discussion. After this point is rearranged the article will be clearer for the readers once, the theme is very interesting for the area

The hypothesis is reliable and valid. The panel is well characterized by two methods (molecular and an immunoassay) The methods about the cross-sectional study are clear and all variables are demonstrated and measured appropriately. The comparison methods describing the pairs is very interesting. The patient's number is very good for statistical analysis. So, authors could rewrite the text excluding details that are not appropriate for the article's context . Any Examples: Puncture venal is a simple procedure and is very detailed. There is other repetitive information for example the procedure was performed in Flavivirus Laboratory. This can be written in the initial paragraph so, all procedures were performed in the laboratory.

The data described in figure 1 is clear and appropriate and described all results. Furthermore, the parts of the subsequent results could be better write and/or the authors could use a bar graph to compare the kits. The bar graphic can include all parameters of statistics.

The discussion was the best article part. All results points are decribed and especially, the perspectives to include more one scheme for diagnostic. This study demonstrates the assay specificity is high but, low sensibility. All studies are well compared and the problems are easy to understand. The dengue serotypes studies are the main problem but, the test can be analyzed by senior research or a junior. The perspectives are in analyse using a higher n with all dengue serotypes even, especially DEN4 can be most analyzed.