<p>The author made a fair attempt to describe the epidemiology of measles, however looking at the results presented here, there is an obvious limitation in the quality of the surveillance data used as it relates to the completeness of cases and variables (which is obviously beyond the control of the author) for &nbsp;2 major reasons highlighted in the abstract</p><ol><li><strong>''there is no time pattern in terms of the yearly occurrence of cases across the period under review'' - </strong>measles as a<strong> </strong>disease almost always exhibit a seasonality pattern in its occurrence. Although the infection may occur all year round, it always peaks at certain seasons of the year - in the tropics - during the dry season and in the temperate region - late winter and early spring. &nbsp;For the national data not to have been able to show this seasonality, the quality of the data is poor, except measles vaccination is almost 100% coverage.</li><li><strong>'' Most, 166 (62%), of the confirmed cases had unknown vaccination status'' - </strong>this is also adducing to the poor quality of the surveillance data (i.e. completeness of the variables collected)</li></ol><p>In the result section, analyzing and reporting attack rates by year and by district would have been more informative, not just the proportion of all cases that occurred per year or by district</p><p>The results presented are not reliable and sufficient enough to serve as a basis for the conclusion- ''<strong>Sierra Leone recorded a sharp increase in laboratory-confirmed measles cases in 2022'' - </strong>reporting and comparing attack rates for each year, would have been more useful and enough to make this statement, not just reporting the proportion of all cases occurring each year.</p><p>As we all know in public health, &nbsp;the quality of surveillance data is a direct consequence of the quality of the surveillance system that generates them. I think an important conclusion and recommendation that should have come out of this work, is the quality of the surveillance data (reflecting the quality of the surveillance system), making some of these results unreliable (although that was not the initial intention and objective of the author), this should have come out clearly in the conclusion as a limitation. The surveillance system needs to be improved with complete, accurate, and timely data collection. (this should have come out clearly in the recommendation to address the limitation of poor surveillance data)</p>