Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Mohammad Hossein Yektakooshali
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
1. conclusion in the abstract Should be changed with better sentences.
2. Our study was aimed to compare the ..... in abs.
3. dramatically is not an academic word in abs.
4. Why you choose this time
1. May 2020
2. Its better you use completed years because of publications rules. For example, until 2023 or
2022.
3. Hepatitis B Virus Surface Antigen-Negative and Hepatitis C Virus Antibody-Negative
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ”, “non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma        Its not Mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=Hepatitis+B+Virus+Surface+Antigen-Negative
+and+Hepatitis+C+Virus+Antibody-Negative+Hepatocellular+Carcinoma
4. non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma            its not mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=non-B+non-C+hepatocellular+carcinoma
5. The initial literature screening was performed by two independent reviewers ............  what is
your strategy if these two researchers have conflict in one study? Should be say
6. no references to NOS? NOS is not good for cohort stuies, NOS is better for Cross sectional,
you should use NIH Quality Assessment Tool.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) Quality Assessment Tool is primarily designed for case-
control and cohort studies. However, some researchers argue that the NOS may not be the
best tool for assessing the quality of cohort studies due to its limited scope and lack of
consideration for important factors such as confounding variables and loss to follow-up. Other
quality assessment tools, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, may be more appropriate for
evaluating the quality of cohort studies.
7. in figure 1 D - why do you use random when i2 is zero? must use fixed effect size. Also, in
C i2 is 20%. ---- also, in fig 2 B and D I2 is below 25%.  so, this section should be re-analyzed
and change.
8. Your study has high heterogeneity, what was your strategy to reduce this matter. Did you use
one study remove test or sensitivity analysis?
9.  what was your strategy to evaluate the cause of heterogeneity?
10. Did papers blind for the name of the author, institute and journal to reduce researchers bias?
You said against.
11. How did you do In necessary cases, further information and raw data?
12. Its better you say your PICO in inclusion criteria
13. Study like Li [13][41] and Utsunomiya [15] with population of more than 10 times than
others is very high risk
This study resluts' weight to whole analysis. So you should run sensitivty analysis.
14. More than 80 percentage of studies are from Japan and China, which is very hard to spread
the rusults' to other coutries. It is dicussable.
Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Mohammad Hossein Yektakooshali
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
1. conclusion in the abstract Should be changed with better sentences.
2. Our study was aimed to compare the ..... in abs.
3. dramatically is not an academic word in abs.
4. Why you choose this time
1. May 2020
2. Its better you use completed years because of publications rules. For example, until 2023 or
2022.
3. Hepatitis B Virus Surface Antigen-Negative and Hepatitis C Virus Antibody-Negative
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ”, “non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma        Its not Mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=Hepatitis+B+Virus+Surface+Antigen-Negative
+and+Hepatitis+C+Virus+Antibody-Negative+Hepatocellular+Carcinoma
4. non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma            its not mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=non-B+non-C+hepatocellular+carcinoma
5. The initial literature screening was performed by two independent reviewers ............  what is
your strategy if these two researchers have conflict in one study? Should be say
6. no references to NOS? NOS is not good for cohort stuies, NOS is better for Cross sectional,
you should use NIH Quality Assessment Tool.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) Quality Assessment Tool is primarily designed for case-
control and cohort studies. However, some researchers argue that the NOS may not be the
best tool for assessing the quality of cohort studies due to its limited scope and lack of
consideration for important factors such as confounding variables and loss to follow-up. Other
quality assessment tools, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, may be more appropriate for
evaluating the quality of cohort studies.
7. in figure 1 D - why do you use random when i2 is zero? must use fixed effect size. Also, in
C i2 is 20%. ---- also, in fig 2 B and D I2 is below 25%.  so, this section should be re-analyzed
and change.
8. Your study has high heterogeneity, what was your strategy to reduce this matter. Did you use
one study remove test or sensitivity analysis?
9.  what was your strategy to evaluate the cause of heterogeneity?
10. Did papers blind for the name of the author, institute and journal to reduce researchers bias?
You said against.
11. How did you do In necessary cases, further information and raw data?
12. Its better you say your PICO in inclusion criteria
13. Study like Li [13][41] and Utsunomiya [15] with population of more than 10 times than
others is very high risk
This study resluts' weight to whole analysis. So you should run sensitivty analysis.
14. More than 80 percentage of studies are from Japan and China, which is very hard to spread
the rusults' to other coutries. It is dicussable.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics among Patients with HBV-positive,
HCV- positive and Non-B Non-C Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Mohammad Hossein Yektakooshali
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
1. conclusion in the abstract Should be changed with better sentences.
2. Our study was aimed to compare the ..... in abs.
3. dramatically is not an academic word in abs.
4. Why you choose this time
1. May 2020
2. Its better you use completed years because of publications rules. For example, until 2023 or
2022.
3. Hepatitis B Virus Surface Antigen-Negative and Hepatitis C Virus Antibody-Negative
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ”, “non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma        Its not Mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=Hepatitis+B+Virus+Surface+Antigen-Negative
+and+Hepatitis+C+Virus+Antibody-Negative+Hepatocellular+Carcinoma
4. non-B non-C hepatocellular carcinoma            its not mesh:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=non-B+non-C+hepatocellular+carcinoma
5. The initial literature screening was performed by two independent reviewers ............  what is
your strategy if these two researchers have conflict in one study? Should be say
6. no references to NOS? NOS is not good for cohort stuies, NOS is better for Cross sectional,
you should use NIH Quality Assessment Tool.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) Quality Assessment Tool is primarily designed for case-
control and cohort studies. However, some researchers argue that the NOS may not be the
best tool for assessing the quality of cohort studies due to its limited scope and lack of
consideration for important factors such as confounding variables and loss to follow-up. Other
quality assessment tools, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, may be more appropriate for
evaluating the quality of cohort studies.
7. in figure 1 D - why do you use random when i2 is zero? must use fixed effect size. Also, in
C i2 is 20%. ---- also, in fig 2 B and D I2 is below 25%.  so, this section should be re-analyzed
and change.
8. Your study has high heterogeneity, what was your strategy to reduce this matter. Did you use
one study remove test or sensitivity analysis?
9.  what was your strategy to evaluate the cause of heterogeneity?
10. Did papers blind for the name of the author, institute and journal to reduce researchers bias?
You said against.
11. How did you do In necessary cases, further information and raw data?
12. Its better you say your PICO in inclusion criteria
13. Study like Li [13][41] and Utsunomiya [15] with population of more than 10 times than
others is very high risk
This study resluts' weight to whole analysis. So you should run sensitivty analysis.
14. More than 80 percentage of studies are from Japan and China, which is very hard to spread
the rusults' to other coutries. It is dicussable.
assistant