Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
Version: 11 Date: 14 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
The authors partially revised the manuscript and the figures in accordance to our comments,
however this was the third revision and they should have been more careful.
More specifically,
1) Although the authors claimed that they have presented non-parametric variables as median
values, they did not encompass this information in “Methods” section as well as they did not
distinguish their presentation from parametric variables. Furthermore, the baseline variables are
presented in Table 2, not in Table 1 as they wrote in the revision letter!
2) The illustration of the data in whole Figure 2 is still inappropriate and it is totally unclear what
comparison has been performed. For instance, in Figure 2A, they showed that patients with CT
+TT genotype with high grade steatosis did not differ significantly from patients with CT+TT
genotype with low grade steatosis? Or with those with CC genotype? And among CC genotype
patients, those with low- or high-grade steatosis? It is totally misleading.
3) In the revision letter, the authors stated that in Figure 2 they compared the prevalence of AA
+AG genotypes in those with “moderate to severe steatosis” versus “mild steatosis”. However,
in the manuscript when they refer to Figure 2, they still use the p-value and ORs derived from
the logistic regression. The comparison between prevalence of 2 different groups should be
performed using Students t-test or Mann-Whitney as appropriate.
4) The overall English language quality is poor.
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
Version: 11 Date: 14 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
The authors partially revised the manuscript and the figures in accordance to our comments,
however this was the third revision and they should have been more careful.
More specifically,
1) Although the authors claimed that they have presented non-parametric variables as median
values, they did not encompass this information in “Methods” section as well as they did not
distinguish their presentation from parametric variables. Furthermore, the baseline variables are
presented in Table 2, not in Table 1 as they wrote in the revision letter!
2) The illustration of the data in whole Figure 2 is still inappropriate and it is totally unclear what
comparison has been performed. For instance, in Figure 2A, they showed that patients with CT
+TT genotype with high grade steatosis did not differ significantly from patients with CT+TT
genotype with low grade steatosis? Or with those with CC genotype? And among CC genotype
patients, those with low- or high-grade steatosis? It is totally misleading.
3) In the revision letter, the authors stated that in Figure 2 they compared the prevalence of AA
+AG genotypes in those with “moderate to severe steatosis” versus “mild steatosis”. However,
in the manuscript when they refer to Figure 2, they still use the p-value and ORs derived from
the logistic regression. The comparison between prevalence of 2 different groups should be
performed using Students t-test or Mann-Whitney as appropriate.
4) The overall English language quality is poor.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
Version: 11 Date: 14 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title: Variations in TM6SF2, PCSK9 and PCSK7 genes and risk of hepatic steatosis after liver
transplantation: a cross-sectional study
The authors partially revised the manuscript and the figures in accordance to our comments,
however this was the third revision and they should have been more careful.
More specifically,
1) Although the authors claimed that they have presented non-parametric variables as median
values, they did not encompass this information in “Methods” section as well as they did not
distinguish their presentation from parametric variables. Furthermore, the baseline variables are
presented in Table 2, not in Table 1 as they wrote in the revision letter!
2) The illustration of the data in whole Figure 2 is still inappropriate and it is totally unclear what
comparison has been performed. For instance, in Figure 2A, they showed that patients with CT
+TT genotype with high grade steatosis did not differ significantly from patients with CT+TT
genotype with low grade steatosis? Or with those with CC genotype? And among CC genotype
patients, those with low- or high-grade steatosis? It is totally misleading.
3) In the revision letter, the authors stated that in Figure 2 they compared the prevalence of AA
+AG genotypes in those with “moderate to severe steatosis” versus “mild steatosis”. However,
in the manuscript when they refer to Figure 2, they still use the p-value and ORs derived from
the logistic regression. The comparison between prevalence of 2 different groups should be
performed using Students t-test or Mann-Whitney as appropriate.
4) The overall English language quality is poor.
assistant