Title: New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic
review
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Amirhossein Hessami
Reviewer's report:
Authors have reported the occurrence of liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination using
a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study is comprehensive and provides a good
viewpoint of adverse effects of vaccination on liver observed around the world. The data could
be used by clinicians and policy makers around world in order to develop guidelines and increase
the knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccines. However there are some points which needs to
be addressed.
1- The study title mentioned "meta-analysis", but there were no meta-analysis performed in
the study. Forest plots, funnel plots, pooled prevalence etc. was not included in the study.
As in my opinion this is a systematic review only but not meta-analysis since there were no
pooled estimated or P-values for assessing a hypothesis. Authors needs to correct the article and
reconsider the use of the word meta-analysis in this article.
2- Authors have mentioned that all statistical analysis was done using Microsoft Excel software.
This software is not generally being considered as a statistical analysis or meta-analysis tool.
In case authors have performed a meta-analysis, it needs to be done using other meta-analysis
package software including Comprehensive Meta-analysis, STATA, RevMan etc. All meta-
analyses should be presented using a forest-plot.
3-  Authors have mentioned that data was shown as mean and standard deviation. There were no
means or standard deviations reported through the study. Please correct the mentioned statement.
Title: New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic
review
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Amirhossein Hessami
Reviewer's report:
Authors have reported the occurrence of liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination using
a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study is comprehensive and provides a good
viewpoint of adverse effects of vaccination on liver observed around the world. The data could
be used by clinicians and policy makers around world in order to develop guidelines and increase
the knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccines. However there are some points which needs to
be addressed.
1- The study title mentioned "meta-analysis", but there were no meta-analysis performed in
the study. Forest plots, funnel plots, pooled prevalence etc. was not included in the study.
As in my opinion this is a systematic review only but not meta-analysis since there were no
pooled estimated or P-values for assessing a hypothesis. Authors needs to correct the article and
reconsider the use of the word meta-analysis in this article.
2- Authors have mentioned that all statistical analysis was done using Microsoft Excel software.
This software is not generally being considered as a statistical analysis or meta-analysis tool.
In case authors have performed a meta-analysis, it needs to be done using other meta-analysis
package software including Comprehensive Meta-analysis, STATA, RevMan etc. All meta-
analyses should be presented using a forest-plot.
3-  Authors have mentioned that data was shown as mean and standard deviation. There were no
means or standard deviations reported through the study. Please correct the mentioned statement.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic
review
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Amirhossein Hessami
Reviewer's report:
Authors have reported the occurrence of liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination using
a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study is comprehensive and provides a good
viewpoint of adverse effects of vaccination on liver observed around the world. The data could
be used by clinicians and policy makers around world in order to develop guidelines and increase
the knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccines. However there are some points which needs to
be addressed.
1- The study title mentioned "meta-analysis", but there were no meta-analysis performed in
the study. Forest plots, funnel plots, pooled prevalence etc. was not included in the study.
As in my opinion this is a systematic review only but not meta-analysis since there were no
pooled estimated or P-values for assessing a hypothesis. Authors needs to correct the article and
reconsider the use of the word meta-analysis in this article.
2- Authors have mentioned that all statistical analysis was done using Microsoft Excel software.
This software is not generally being considered as a statistical analysis or meta-analysis tool.
In case authors have performed a meta-analysis, it needs to be done using other meta-analysis
package software including Comprehensive Meta-analysis, STATA, RevMan etc. All meta-
analyses should be presented using a forest-plot.
3-  Authors have mentioned that data was shown as mean and standard deviation. There were no
means or standard deviations reported through the study. Please correct the mentioned statement.
assistant