<p>The background was well-laid.</p><p>The methods aptly and appropriately described the study design.</p><p>The result</p><ol><li><strong>''The average incidence for the border districts was 86 per 100,000 population, and for the non-border districts, it was 20 per 100,000 population. The incidence of measles in border districts decreased from 150 in 2018 to 56 per 100,000 population in 2021; while in non-border districts, it increased from 13 in 2018 to 19 per 100,000 population in 2021.''-&nbsp;</strong> If the raw data is available, these numbers should be put to test (i.e. with P value) to ascertain if the changes were just by chance or significant.</li></ol><p>The conclusion is fair, however, the finding of &nbsp;<strong>''only 38% (60/158) of the confirmed cases in the border districts were vaccinated'' (that means 62% of susceptibles (cases) are not vaccinated - </strong>should have come out boldly in the conclusion, to say that vaccination coverage amongst susceptibles is poor.</p><p>The recommendation&nbsp;</p><ol><li>should not focus only on supplemental immunization activities for the border districts, even routine immunization should be intensified.</li><li>The non-border districts although have a comparatively lower burden of measles cases when compared with the border districts, the seeming increase in the incidence of cases over the years should be of concern - ''<strong>while in non-border districts, it increased from 13 in 2018 to 19 per 100,000 population in 2021''</strong>, so immunization activities in the non-border districts should also be accelerated</li></ol><p>&nbsp;</p>