Reviewer’s report
Title:  Infection deteriorating hepatitis B virus related acute-on-chronic liver failure: a retrospective
cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Aug 2020
Reviewer: Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
Interesting report. Authors investigated the characteristics of infection and its influence on mortality in
HBV-ACLF through a retrospective cohort study.
Generally, language and grammar should be revised. 
Abstract:
Results reported in line 42, 43 are repeated in line 45
It is "septic shock" not "sepsis shock" and repeated many times.
The statement in line 47, 48 should precede that in line 46.
Line 51, the statement "the increased incidence of …needs revision…which coms first?
Methods:
Spell out abbreviation when used for the first time as PLA, CLIF-OF, CANONIC ….
Is HBV-DNA measured in all participants?? 
 Page 6; line 136, "fever" is better than "febricity".
Page 7; line 154, definition of septic shock should be clarified.
Results:
Age (mean ± SD) is typically the same in both groups???
Table 3 should come before table 2 as described in the text.
28-day mortality is not recorded in table 2 as described in the text for number of infection sites and
number of strains.
Discussion:
Discussion should be started by a short introduction about the topic.
Results need to be discussed in greater details.
Page 12;
Line 285, is pneumonia a type of infection or an infection related indicator….revise your results.
Line 288, show how findings in other research are consistent with your finding.
Line 292, how previous studies agree with your findings?
Line 302, what did Fernandez et al found.
Page 13;
Line 304-306, explain what a recent study found?
Line 319-321, give examples from your study and the other two references to confirm this statement.
Line 323, 324, how Zang et al consider AKI a risk factor for short-term mortality in patients with
ACLF??
Limitations of this study also include neglecting the HBV treatment status and the relation of HBV load
to infection.
Publons  Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verification of this  review directly to
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of
the journal, and date of your review submission (the  “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to
Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify
you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for
them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data
to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering
the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by
updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors
to identify candidate reviewers.
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.  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 ) if this manuscript is
accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published report have
been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.If you are not happy
for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing the review.If you
wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to
include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you
change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate
controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are  the  images  in  this  manuscript  (including  electrophoretic  gels  and  blots)  free  from  apparent
manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title:  Infection deteriorating hepatitis B virus related acute-on-chronic liver failure: a retrospective
cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Aug 2020
Reviewer: Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
Interesting report. Authors investigated the characteristics of infection and its influence on mortality in
HBV-ACLF through a retrospective cohort study.
Generally, language and grammar should be revised. 
Abstract:
Results reported in line 42, 43 are repeated in line 45
It is "septic shock" not "sepsis shock" and repeated many times.
The statement in line 47, 48 should precede that in line 46.
Line 51, the statement "the increased incidence of …needs revision…which coms first?
Methods:
Spell out abbreviation when used for the first time as PLA, CLIF-OF, CANONIC ….
Is HBV-DNA measured in all participants?? 
 Page 6; line 136, "fever" is better than "febricity".
Page 7; line 154, definition of septic shock should be clarified.
Results:
Age (mean ± SD) is typically the same in both groups???
Table 3 should come before table 2 as described in the text.
28-day mortality is not recorded in table 2 as described in the text for number of infection sites and
number of strains.
Discussion:
Discussion should be started by a short introduction about the topic.
Results need to be discussed in greater details.
Page 12;
Line 285, is pneumonia a type of infection or an infection related indicator….revise your results.
Line 288, show how findings in other research are consistent with your finding.
Line 292, how previous studies agree with your findings?
Line 302, what did Fernandez et al found.
Page 13;
Line 304-306, explain what a recent study found?
Line 319-321, give examples from your study and the other two references to confirm this statement.
Line 323, 324, how Zang et al consider AKI a risk factor for short-term mortality in patients with
ACLF??
Limitations of this study also include neglecting the HBV treatment status and the relation of HBV load
to infection.
Publons  Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verification of this  review directly to
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of
the journal, and date of your review submission (the  “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to
Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify
you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for
them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data
to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering
the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by
updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors
to identify candidate reviewers.
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.  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 ) if this manuscript is
accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published report have
been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.If you are not happy
for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing the review.If you
wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to
include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you
change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate
controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are  the  images  in  this  manuscript  (including  electrophoretic  gels  and  blots)  free  from  apparent
manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title:  Infection deteriorating hepatitis B virus related acute-on-chronic liver failure: a retrospective
cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 10 Aug 2020
Reviewer: Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
Interesting report. Authors investigated the characteristics of infection and its influence on mortality in
HBV-ACLF through a retrospective cohort study.
Generally, language and grammar should be revised. 
Abstract:
Results reported in line 42, 43 are repeated in line 45
It is "septic shock" not "sepsis shock" and repeated many times.
The statement in line 47, 48 should precede that in line 46.
Line 51, the statement "the increased incidence of …needs revision…which coms first?
Methods:
Spell out abbreviation when used for the first time as PLA, CLIF-OF, CANONIC ….
Is HBV-DNA measured in all participants?? 
 Page 6; line 136, "fever" is better than "febricity".
Page 7; line 154, definition of septic shock should be clarified.
Results:
Age (mean ± SD) is typically the same in both groups???
Table 3 should come before table 2 as described in the text.
28-day mortality is not recorded in table 2 as described in the text for number of infection sites and
number of strains.
Discussion:
Discussion should be started by a short introduction about the topic.
Results need to be discussed in greater details.
Page 12;
Line 285, is pneumonia a type of infection or an infection related indicator….revise your results.
Line 288, show how findings in other research are consistent with your finding.
Line 292, how previous studies agree with your findings?
Line 302, what did Fernandez et al found.
Page 13;
Line 304-306, explain what a recent study found?
Line 319-321, give examples from your study and the other two references to confirm this statement.
Line 323, 324, how Zang et al consider AKI a risk factor for short-term mortality in patients with
ACLF??
Limitations of this study also include neglecting the HBV treatment status and the relation of HBV load
to infection.
Publons  Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verification of this  review directly to
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of
the journal, and date of your review submission (the  “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to
Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify
you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for
them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data
to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering
the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by
updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors
to identify candidate reviewers.
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.  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 ) if this manuscript is
accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published report have
been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.If you are not happy
for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing the review.If you
wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to
include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you
change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate
controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are  the  images  in  this  manuscript  (including  electrophoretic  gels  and  blots)  free  from  apparent
manipulation?
Yes
assistant