Title: New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic
review
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing some of my previous comments. However, there are still some
major issues which haven't been resolved with the current version of revised manuscript. My
major concern is still regarding the Methodological quality of this manuscript which should be
improved. My detailed comments regarding this manuscript can be seen below:
1) Consistent with my previous comments, I think the background haven't been clear enough to
provide the rationale or reasons to conduct this systematic review. Systematic review (with or
without meta-analysis) is usually performed when there were inconsistencies among the results
from various studies. Systematic review may give light in solving those inconsistencies. How
about this study? Why systematic review is so important for this topic?
2) Registration of research protocol is one of the requirements in the PRISMA checklist.
PROSPERO is one of the international registries which can be used to register our research
protocol. Moreover, if the topic is related to Covid-19, PROSPERO usually can provide
registration number in just few days. Why do the authors not register their research protocol?
3) Methods: Please mention the period for literature searching.
4) Methods: The description of keywords used for literature searching may be benefited with the
use of "()", such as ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "Covid-19" OR "coronavirus") AND ("vaccination"
OR "vaccine") etc...
5) Methods: The inclusion criteria number 1 and 2 seems overlapping. Please revise.
6) Methods: The exclusion criteria number 1 and 2 seems overlapping too. Please revise.
7) Methods: The process for study selection haven't been mentioned in the Methods.
8) Methods: Regarding the use of NOS for case report/case-series, the authors have cited study
by Murad MH et al. 2017 (ref no 22) for references. In the original study by Murad MH et al.
there were 8 items of questions from modified NOS scale, but in the current study the authors
only mention 5 items. Why there is difference in this matter? Moreover, the original study by
Murad MH et al. did not mention about the cut-off for classifying studies into good, moderate or
poor quality. From what studies do the authors use this interpretation of results? Please explain
and provide.
9) Methods: The authors have removed "meta-analysis" from the title, but why I still see sub-
section "Data-Analysis" in the Methods? Moreover, the authors still mention about Microsoft
Excel for statistical analysis. This is substantially wrong because Microsoft Excel cannot be
used for statistical analysis. Do the authors understand the essential of systematic review study?
I suggest the authors to read again Cochrane manual handbook for conducting systematic review
and revise their manuscript accordingly.
Title: New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic
review
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing some of my previous comments. However, there are still some
major issues which haven't been resolved with the current version of revised manuscript. My
major concern is still regarding the Methodological quality of this manuscript which should be
improved. My detailed comments regarding this manuscript can be seen below:
1) Consistent with my previous comments, I think the background haven't been clear enough to
provide the rationale or reasons to conduct this systematic review. Systematic review (with or
without meta-analysis) is usually performed when there were inconsistencies among the results
from various studies. Systematic review may give light in solving those inconsistencies. How
about this study? Why systematic review is so important for this topic?
2) Registration of research protocol is one of the requirements in the PRISMA checklist.
PROSPERO is one of the international registries which can be used to register our research
protocol. Moreover, if the topic is related to Covid-19, PROSPERO usually can provide
registration number in just few days. Why do the authors not register their research protocol?
3) Methods: Please mention the period for literature searching.
4) Methods: The description of keywords used for literature searching may be benefited with the
use of "()", such as ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "Covid-19" OR "coronavirus") AND ("vaccination"
OR "vaccine") etc...
5) Methods: The inclusion criteria number 1 and 2 seems overlapping. Please revise.
6) Methods: The exclusion criteria number 1 and 2 seems overlapping too. Please revise.
7) Methods: The process for study selection haven't been mentioned in the Methods.
8) Methods: Regarding the use of NOS for case report/case-series, the authors have cited study
by Murad MH et al. 2017 (ref no 22) for references. In the original study by Murad MH et al.
there were 8 items of questions from modified NOS scale, but in the current study the authors
only mention 5 items. Why there is difference in this matter? Moreover, the original study by
Murad MH et al. did not mention about the cut-off for classifying studies into good, moderate or
poor quality. From what studies do the authors use this interpretation of results? Please explain
and provide.
9) Methods: The authors have removed "meta-analysis" from the title, but why I still see sub-
section "Data-Analysis" in the Methods? Moreover, the authors still mention about Microsoft
Excel for statistical analysis. This is substantially wrong because Microsoft Excel cannot be
used for statistical analysis. Do the authors understand the essential of systematic review study?
I suggest the authors to read again Cochrane manual handbook for conducting systematic review
and revise their manuscript accordingly.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic
review
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing some of my previous comments. However, there are still some
major issues which haven't been resolved with the current version of revised manuscript. My
major concern is still regarding the Methodological quality of this manuscript which should be
improved. My detailed comments regarding this manuscript can be seen below:
1) Consistent with my previous comments, I think the background haven't been clear enough to
provide the rationale or reasons to conduct this systematic review. Systematic review (with or
without meta-analysis) is usually performed when there were inconsistencies among the results
from various studies. Systematic review may give light in solving those inconsistencies. How
about this study? Why systematic review is so important for this topic?
2) Registration of research protocol is one of the requirements in the PRISMA checklist.
PROSPERO is one of the international registries which can be used to register our research
protocol. Moreover, if the topic is related to Covid-19, PROSPERO usually can provide
registration number in just few days. Why do the authors not register their research protocol?
3) Methods: Please mention the period for literature searching.
4) Methods: The description of keywords used for literature searching may be benefited with the
use of "()", such as ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "Covid-19" OR "coronavirus") AND ("vaccination"
OR "vaccine") etc...
5) Methods: The inclusion criteria number 1 and 2 seems overlapping. Please revise.
6) Methods: The exclusion criteria number 1 and 2 seems overlapping too. Please revise.
7) Methods: The process for study selection haven't been mentioned in the Methods.
8) Methods: Regarding the use of NOS for case report/case-series, the authors have cited study
by Murad MH et al. 2017 (ref no 22) for references. In the original study by Murad MH et al.
there were 8 items of questions from modified NOS scale, but in the current study the authors
only mention 5 items. Why there is difference in this matter? Moreover, the original study by
Murad MH et al. did not mention about the cut-off for classifying studies into good, moderate or
poor quality. From what studies do the authors use this interpretation of results? Please explain
and provide.
9) Methods: The authors have removed "meta-analysis" from the title, but why I still see sub-
section "Data-Analysis" in the Methods? Moreover, the authors still mention about Microsoft
Excel for statistical analysis. This is substantially wrong because Microsoft Excel cannot be
used for statistical analysis. Do the authors understand the essential of systematic review study?
I suggest the authors to read again Cochrane manual handbook for conducting systematic review
and revise their manuscript accordingly.
assistant