Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Prevalence of human herpesviruses in biliary fluid and their association with biliary 
complications after liver transplantation  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2019 
 
Reviewer:  Satoshi  Miuma  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This manuscript titled "Prevalence of human herpes viruses in biliary fluids and their association 
with biliary complications after liver transplantation" discussed HHV detection in b ile in liver 
transplanted patients. This is an interesting observation that may show the usefulness of bile 
samples in liver transplanted patients. However, I think that this manuscript has some problems 
as indicated below.  
 
First, this manuscript is hard to read because there are too many paragraphs. Author should 
arrange the appearance overall for readers. The discussion section seems scrappy. In addition, the 
prevalence of HHV 1 -8 among each sample is better to be presented using Figure for reader, 
becau se many data were presented in this manuscript,  
 
Author described 'we included bile samples for 39 patients with NAS, 20patients with AS and 16 
without stricture (which mean total number of patients were 75). However total number of 
patients described in T able1,2 and 4 is 73 and those in Table 3 is 71. How many patients were 
included in this study?  
 
Herpesvirus prevalence were compared among each sample, which is considered very 
meaningful. However, patient from whom bile samples (n=73) was collected are di fferent to 
those sera (n=42) and liver biopsy samples (n=53) was collected. The prevalence should be 
compared by analysis in the same subjects.  
 
This study showed the prognosis of patients positive with HHV -6 bile was poorer than that with 
negative by Kaplan Meier survival analysis only. Author should do analysis using cox proportion 
hazard model.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wha t 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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 req uire 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 received 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 interest s? 
 
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 review 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 u pload 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/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as 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:  Prevalence of human herpesviruses in biliary fluid and their association with biliary 
complications after liver transplantation  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2019 
 
Reviewer:  Satoshi  Miuma  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This manuscript titled "Prevalence of human herpes viruses in biliary fluids and their association 
with biliary complications after liver transplantation" discussed HHV detection in b ile in liver 
transplanted patients. This is an interesting observation that may show the usefulness of bile 
samples in liver transplanted patients. However, I think that this manuscript has some problems 
as indicated below.  
 
First, this manuscript is hard to read because there are too many paragraphs. Author should 
arrange the appearance overall for readers. The discussion section seems scrappy. In addition, the 
prevalence of HHV 1 -8 among each sample is better to be presented using Figure for reader, 
becau se many data were presented in this manuscript,  
 
Author described 'we included bile samples for 39 patients with NAS, 20patients with AS and 16 
without stricture (which mean total number of patients were 75). However total number of 
patients described in T able1,2 and 4 is 73 and those in Table 3 is 71. How many patients were 
included in this study?  
 
Herpesvirus prevalence were compared among each sample, which is considered very 
meaningful. However, patient from whom bile samples (n=73) was collected are di fferent to 
those sera (n=42) and liver biopsy samples (n=53) was collected. The prevalence should be 
compared by analysis in the same subjects.  
 
This study showed the prognosis of patients positive with HHV -6 bile was poorer than that with 
negative by Kaplan Meier survival analysis only. Author should do analysis using cox proportion 
hazard model.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wha t 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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 req uire 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 received 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 interest s? 
 
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 review 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 u pload 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/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as 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:  Prevalence of human herpesviruses in biliary fluid and their association with biliary 
complications after liver transplantation  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2019 
 
Reviewer:  Satoshi  Miuma  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This manuscript titled "Prevalence of human herpes viruses in biliary fluids and their association 
with biliary complications after liver transplantation" discussed HHV detection in b ile in liver 
transplanted patients. This is an interesting observation that may show the usefulness of bile 
samples in liver transplanted patients. However, I think that this manuscript has some problems 
as indicated below.  
 
First, this manuscript is hard to read because there are too many paragraphs. Author should 
arrange the appearance overall for readers. The discussion section seems scrappy. In addition, the 
prevalence of HHV 1 -8 among each sample is better to be presented using Figure for reader, 
becau se many data were presented in this manuscript,  
 
Author described 'we included bile samples for 39 patients with NAS, 20patients with AS and 16 
without stricture (which mean total number of patients were 75). However total number of 
patients described in T able1,2 and 4 is 73 and those in Table 3 is 71. How many patients were 
included in this study?  
 
Herpesvirus prevalence were compared among each sample, which is considered very 
meaningful. However, patient from whom bile samples (n=73) was collected are di fferent to 
those sera (n=42) and liver biopsy samples (n=53) was collected. The prevalence should be 
compared by analysis in the same subjects.  
 
This study showed the prognosis of patients positive with HHV -6 bile was poorer than that with 
negative by Kaplan Meier survival analysis only. Author should do analysis using cox proportion 
hazard model.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wha t 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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 req uire 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 received 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 interest s? 
 
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 review 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 u pload 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/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant