Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Impact of hepatic steatosis on treatment response in nuclesos(t)ide analogue -treated  
HBeAg -positive chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Theodoros And routsakos  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Congrats for your work, however I think it needs a few corrections and additions before it is 
ready for publication. First of all, during your study period, which patients had a liver biopsy 
before NA initiation? All patients in order to determine  disease staging or did these patients 
presented a special subgroup? You say in your methods section that 'Patients with missing values 
or no stored serum available for assay of HBV DNA were regarded as virological non -
responders'. Since this could lead to  false results you need to clarify how many were these 
patients and in which of your hepatic steatosis group they belonged. Moreover since you've 
already done the uni - and multivariate analysis I don't really see the point in the 'HBeAg 
seroclearance in ag e- and gender -matched subgroups' part of your results. Since you lack data 
about patients' metabolic status (in terms of obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes melitus), I 
think the part in discussion section talking about NAFLD and cirrhosis (lines 309 -328) is useless. 
In discussion section, when talking about the advantages of your study I think you should 
emphasize that you have liver biopsy in all patients. Lastly I think you should name the three 
steatosis groups with something like little/medium/heav y steatosis groups since you have a lot of 
numbers in your paper making it hard to read.  
Overall I think you have a very interesting study that I think needs a little bit more work before it 
is ready for publication.  
 
 
Are t he methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Impact of hepatic steatosis on treatment response in nuclesos(t)ide analogue -treated  
HBeAg -positive chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Theodoros And routsakos  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Congrats for your work, however I think it needs a few corrections and additions before it is 
ready for publication. First of all, during your study period, which patients had a liver biopsy 
before NA initiation? All patients in order to determine  disease staging or did these patients 
presented a special subgroup? You say in your methods section that 'Patients with missing values 
or no stored serum available for assay of HBV DNA were regarded as virological non -
responders'. Since this could lead to  false results you need to clarify how many were these 
patients and in which of your hepatic steatosis group they belonged. Moreover since you've 
already done the uni - and multivariate analysis I don't really see the point in the 'HBeAg 
seroclearance in ag e- and gender -matched subgroups' part of your results. Since you lack data 
about patients' metabolic status (in terms of obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes melitus), I 
think the part in discussion section talking about NAFLD and cirrhosis (lines 309 -328) is useless. 
In discussion section, when talking about the advantages of your study I think you should 
emphasize that you have liver biopsy in all patients. Lastly I think you should name the three 
steatosis groups with something like little/medium/heav y steatosis groups since you have a lot of 
numbers in your paper making it hard to read.  
Overall I think you have a very interesting study that I think needs a little bit more work before it 
is ready for publication.  
 
 
Are t he methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Impact of hepatic steatosis on treatment response in nuclesos(t)ide analogue -treated  
HBeAg -positive chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Theodoros And routsakos  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Congrats for your work, however I think it needs a few corrections and additions before it is 
ready for publication. First of all, during your study period, which patients had a liver biopsy 
before NA initiation? All patients in order to determine  disease staging or did these patients 
presented a special subgroup? You say in your methods section that 'Patients with missing values 
or no stored serum available for assay of HBV DNA were regarded as virological non -
responders'. Since this could lead to  false results you need to clarify how many were these 
patients and in which of your hepatic steatosis group they belonged. Moreover since you've 
already done the uni - and multivariate analysis I don't really see the point in the 'HBeAg 
seroclearance in ag e- and gender -matched subgroups' part of your results. Since you lack data 
about patients' metabolic status (in terms of obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes melitus), I 
think the part in discussion section talking about NAFLD and cirrhosis (lines 309 -328) is useless. 
In discussion section, when talking about the advantages of your study I think you should 
emphasize that you have liver biopsy in all patients. Lastly I think you should name the three 
steatosis groups with something like little/medium/heav y steatosis groups since you have a lot of 
numbers in your paper making it hard to read.  
Overall I think you have a very interesting study that I think needs a little bit more work before it 
is ready for publication.  
 
 
Are t he methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant