Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have satisfactorily responded to each of my 7 queries
raising questions/concerns with the study population, design, results, and reporting, and they
have made appropriate corresponding changes to the manuscript text, tables, and supplementary
content.  My overall impression of the revised manuscript largely remains the same: the study
has been conducted correctly and I view the results as valid in its current form.  However,
the study has ongoing non-modifiable limitations including very small sample size (n=36),
no comparator group and no comparator gold standard for fibrosis assessment and/or clinical
outcomes.  Therefore, the results remain of limited additional value to the literature given
the significant evidence addressing this clinical question that has previously been published.
However, if the focus of the editors is on validity rather than novelty, I view this manuscript as
meeting qualification at this time.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The key limitations are non-modifiable and the authors have reasonably cited these issues to
provide appropriate context for interpretation.
Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have satisfactorily responded to each of my 7 queries
raising questions/concerns with the study population, design, results, and reporting, and they
have made appropriate corresponding changes to the manuscript text, tables, and supplementary
content.  My overall impression of the revised manuscript largely remains the same: the study
has been conducted correctly and I view the results as valid in its current form.  However,
the study has ongoing non-modifiable limitations including very small sample size (n=36),
no comparator group and no comparator gold standard for fibrosis assessment and/or clinical
outcomes.  Therefore, the results remain of limited additional value to the literature given
the significant evidence addressing this clinical question that has previously been published.
However, if the focus of the editors is on validity rather than novelty, I view this manuscript as
meeting qualification at this time.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The key limitations are non-modifiable and the authors have reasonably cited these issues to
provide appropriate context for interpretation.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Changes in liver stiffness values assessed using transient elastography in chronic hepatitis
B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a prospective observational study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have satisfactorily responded to each of my 7 queries
raising questions/concerns with the study population, design, results, and reporting, and they
have made appropriate corresponding changes to the manuscript text, tables, and supplementary
content.  My overall impression of the revised manuscript largely remains the same: the study
has been conducted correctly and I view the results as valid in its current form.  However,
the study has ongoing non-modifiable limitations including very small sample size (n=36),
no comparator group and no comparator gold standard for fibrosis assessment and/or clinical
outcomes.  Therefore, the results remain of limited additional value to the literature given
the significant evidence addressing this clinical question that has previously been published.
However, if the focus of the editors is on validity rather than novelty, I view this manuscript as
meeting qualification at this time.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The key limitations are non-modifiable and the authors have reasonably cited these issues to
provide appropriate context for interpretation.
assistant