Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Impact of hepatic steatosis on treatment response in nuclesos(t)ide analogue -treated  
HBeAg -positive chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective study  
 
Versi on: 1 Date: 27 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer: Albert Do  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for the opportunity to re -review this manuscript. I reviewed the changes as well as the 
article as a whole and offer the following comments:  
 
Responses to previous comments (I am reviewer 1):  
* Comment 2 : patient matching should be described in the methods section under 
"patients"  
* Comment 6: this response does not answer my question of whether or not small 
magnitudes of qBsAg are of clinical importance, which would require citation of literature that 
links elevated (or decreased) levels of such antigens to clinical outcomes (e.g. significantly 
decreased/improved treatment efficacy, rapid fibrosis progression, etc.). Otherwise these results 
are at risk for being overstated, as not all statistically -signif icant results are clinically important, 
and this finding does not appear clinically important.  
 
Additional comments for the author:  
* In my re -review of this article, I believe that the English grammar and word choice is 
still insufficient at this time and  requires additional revision to improve. This is particularly 
notable for the new edits which were made. An example is the use of tense in the manuscript 
where in methods all should have been described in past tense, but new edits include "would" 
instead.  Further extensive language revision is needed.  
 
 
Are t he methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 require 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 recei ved 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  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview 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 upload 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/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s 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: Impact of hepatic steatosis on treatment response in nuclesos(t)ide analogue -treated  
HBeAg -positive chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective study  
 
Versi on: 1 Date: 27 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer: Albert Do  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for the opportunity to re -review this manuscript. I reviewed the changes as well as the 
article as a whole and offer the following comments:  
 
Responses to previous comments (I am reviewer 1):  
* Comment 2 : patient matching should be described in the methods section under 
"patients"  
* Comment 6: this response does not answer my question of whether or not small 
magnitudes of qBsAg are of clinical importance, which would require citation of literature that 
links elevated (or decreased) levels of such antigens to clinical outcomes (e.g. significantly 
decreased/improved treatment efficacy, rapid fibrosis progression, etc.). Otherwise these results 
are at risk for being overstated, as not all statistically -signif icant results are clinically important, 
and this finding does not appear clinically important.  
 
Additional comments for the author:  
* In my re -review of this article, I believe that the English grammar and word choice is 
still insufficient at this time and  requires additional revision to improve. This is particularly 
notable for the new edits which were made. An example is the use of tense in the manuscript 
where in methods all should have been described in past tense, but new edits include "would" 
instead.  Further extensive language revision is needed.  
 
 
Are t he methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 require 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 recei ved 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  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview 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 upload 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/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s 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: Impact of hepatic steatosis on treatment response in nuclesos(t)ide analogue -treated  
HBeAg -positive chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective study  
 
Versi on: 1 Date: 27 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer: Albert Do  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for the opportunity to re -review this manuscript. I reviewed the changes as well as the 
article as a whole and offer the following comments:  
 
Responses to previous comments (I am reviewer 1):  
* Comment 2 : patient matching should be described in the methods section under 
"patients"  
* Comment 6: this response does not answer my question of whether or not small 
magnitudes of qBsAg are of clinical importance, which would require citation of literature that 
links elevated (or decreased) levels of such antigens to clinical outcomes (e.g. significantly 
decreased/improved treatment efficacy, rapid fibrosis progression, etc.). Otherwise these results 
are at risk for being overstated, as not all statistically -signif icant results are clinically important, 
and this finding does not appear clinically important.  
 
Additional comments for the author:  
* In my re -review of this article, I believe that the English grammar and word choice is 
still insufficient at this time and  requires additional revision to improve. This is particularly 
notable for the new edits which were made. An example is the use of tense in the manuscript 
where in methods all should have been described in past tense, but new edits include "would" 
instead.  Further extensive language revision is needed.  
 
 
Are t he methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 require 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 recei ved 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  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview 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 upload 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/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant