Reviewer’s report
Title: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir in preventing mother-to-infant transmission of hepatitis B virus:  
a meta-analysis based on 6 studies from China and 3 studies from other countries
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2018
Reviewer: Monica Robotin
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review addresses an important clinical question. The paper is well written and adequate  
details are provided about how the studies were selected (or not) for the analysis. The paper deserves  
publication, provided that inconsistencies are addressed:
1.In the Results section it is stated that in final instance nine studies of the remaining 15 were  
excluded, but it would seem that this figure is six, not nine.
2.Please elaborate on the reason for excluding single arm studies 
3.It is stated (Data extraction and quality assessment) that the quality of non-randomised studies  
was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale, but Table 1 lists Jadad scores only-  
please clarify
4.Table 1 could be easier to read by adding a column for the study design 
5.Figures 2-5 need the reference number as well as the first author of the study 
6.Figures 3 and 5 list some studies twice, with different figures against them- please revise 
7.The title for Figure 4 states "forest plot showing the effect of tenofovir on the maternal ALT,  
CK, Cr elevation" Is this correct, or is this only referring to the ALT levels?
8.Figure 5 - should At birth/ at 6 and 12 months be presented sequentially? 
9.Please rephrase for clarity:
10.Introduction- sentences starting on rows 21 and 49
11.Data extraction: sentence starting on row 46
12.Maternal HBVDNA level- sentence starting on sentence starting on row 1 and the next one 
13.Infant HBV DNA positivity add "group" after tenofovir on line 13
14.Maternal safety: please rephrase sentence starting on row 54
15.Discussion: rephrase sentence starting on row 49
16.The study authored by Greenup originated in Australia, not Austria
17.Jadad scores are not mentioned in the text, only in Table 1
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what 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.
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 recommend additional statistical review
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 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 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 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 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: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir in preventing mother-to-infant transmission of hepatitis B virus:  
a meta-analysis based on 6 studies from China and 3 studies from other countries
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2018
Reviewer: Monica Robotin
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review addresses an important clinical question. The paper is well written and adequate  
details are provided about how the studies were selected (or not) for the analysis. The paper deserves  
publication, provided that inconsistencies are addressed:
1.In the Results section it is stated that in final instance nine studies of the remaining 15 were  
excluded, but it would seem that this figure is six, not nine.
2.Please elaborate on the reason for excluding single arm studies 
3.It is stated (Data extraction and quality assessment) that the quality of non-randomised studies  
was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale, but Table 1 lists Jadad scores only-  
please clarify
4.Table 1 could be easier to read by adding a column for the study design 
5.Figures 2-5 need the reference number as well as the first author of the study 
6.Figures 3 and 5 list some studies twice, with different figures against them- please revise 
7.The title for Figure 4 states "forest plot showing the effect of tenofovir on the maternal ALT,  
CK, Cr elevation" Is this correct, or is this only referring to the ALT levels?
8.Figure 5 - should At birth/ at 6 and 12 months be presented sequentially? 
9.Please rephrase for clarity:
10.Introduction- sentences starting on rows 21 and 49
11.Data extraction: sentence starting on row 46
12.Maternal HBVDNA level- sentence starting on sentence starting on row 1 and the next one 
13.Infant HBV DNA positivity add "group" after tenofovir on line 13
14.Maternal safety: please rephrase sentence starting on row 54
15.Discussion: rephrase sentence starting on row 49
16.The study authored by Greenup originated in Australia, not Austria
17.Jadad scores are not mentioned in the text, only in Table 1
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what 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.
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 recommend additional statistical review
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 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 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 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 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: Efficacy and safety of tenofovir in preventing mother-to-infant transmission of hepatitis B virus:  
a meta-analysis based on 6 studies from China and 3 studies from other countries
Version: 0 Date: 29 Mar 2018
Reviewer: Monica Robotin
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review addresses an important clinical question. The paper is well written and adequate  
details are provided about how the studies were selected (or not) for the analysis. The paper deserves  
publication, provided that inconsistencies are addressed:
1.In the Results section it is stated that in final instance nine studies of the remaining 15 were  
excluded, but it would seem that this figure is six, not nine.
2.Please elaborate on the reason for excluding single arm studies 
3.It is stated (Data extraction and quality assessment) that the quality of non-randomised studies  
was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale, but Table 1 lists Jadad scores only-  
please clarify
4.Table 1 could be easier to read by adding a column for the study design 
5.Figures 2-5 need the reference number as well as the first author of the study 
6.Figures 3 and 5 list some studies twice, with different figures against them- please revise 
7.The title for Figure 4 states "forest plot showing the effect of tenofovir on the maternal ALT,  
CK, Cr elevation" Is this correct, or is this only referring to the ALT levels?
8.Figure 5 - should At birth/ at 6 and 12 months be presented sequentially? 
9.Please rephrase for clarity:
10.Introduction- sentences starting on rows 21 and 49
11.Data extraction: sentence starting on row 46
12.Maternal HBVDNA level- sentence starting on sentence starting on row 1 and the next one 
13.Infant HBV DNA positivity add "group" after tenofovir on line 13
14.Maternal safety: please rephrase sentence starting on row 54
15.Discussion: rephrase sentence starting on row 49
16.The study authored by Greenup originated in Australia, not Austria
17.Jadad scores are not mentioned in the text, only in Table 1
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what 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.
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 recommend additional statistical review
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 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 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 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 as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant