Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  CCL4 Is the Only Predictor for Non -Responder in GT -1 CHC Patients with Favorable 
IL28B genotype Treated with PegIFN/RBV  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Oct 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Gamal El -Sayed  Shiha  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
 
The key notes are:  
 
·         In Table (1): HCV RNA log10 level shows high SD, indicating non -normal distribution. It 
is better to show numbers in median (IQR) and use Mann -Whitney test for comparison.  
 
·         In Table (2): Univariate analysis of CCL3 showed it is not significa nt (p=0.064) and it was 
not included in Multivariate analysis. However. According to authors (Page 9 line 14), 
"Variables that achieved a statistical significance less than 0.10 on univariate analysis were 
entered into multivariate logistic regression anal ysis", so CCL3 should be included in multiple 
analysis.  
 
·         In Table (3): HCV RNA log10 level shows high SD, indicating non -normal distribution. It 
is better to show numbers in median (IQR) and use Mann -Whitney test for comparison.  
 
·         In Tab le (4): Univariate analysis of CXCL9, CXCL11, CCL3, and liver cirrhosis showed 
it is not significant and they were not included in Multivariate analysis. They should be included 
in multiple analysis since there p value is <0.10.  
  
  
Minor considerations in clude:  
 
·         Some abbreviations were used once or twice only and should be removed (like RVR, 
EVR).  
 
·         In page 4, line 27 "null responder" should be changed to "non response"  
 
·         In page 7, line 27 "would be tested" should be changed to  "was tested"  
 
·         In page 7, line 52 "producing by" should be changed to "produced by"  
 
·         In page 8, line 7 "described11" should be changed to "described."  
 
·         In page 13, line 7 "may explained" should be changed to "may explain  
 
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 addi tional 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, e ither 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 relatin g 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.  
 
1-no  2-no  3-no  4-no  5-no  6-no 
 
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 Acces s 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 c omments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  CCL4 Is the Only Predictor for Non -Responder in GT -1 CHC Patients with Favorable 
IL28B genotype Treated with PegIFN/RBV  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Oct 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Gamal El -Sayed  Shiha  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
 
The key notes are:  
 
·         In Table (1): HCV RNA log10 level shows high SD, indicating non -normal distribution. It 
is better to show numbers in median (IQR) and use Mann -Whitney test for comparison.  
 
·         In Table (2): Univariate analysis of CCL3 showed it is not significa nt (p=0.064) and it was 
not included in Multivariate analysis. However. According to authors (Page 9 line 14), 
"Variables that achieved a statistical significance less than 0.10 on univariate analysis were 
entered into multivariate logistic regression anal ysis", so CCL3 should be included in multiple 
analysis.  
 
·         In Table (3): HCV RNA log10 level shows high SD, indicating non -normal distribution. It 
is better to show numbers in median (IQR) and use Mann -Whitney test for comparison.  
 
·         In Tab le (4): Univariate analysis of CXCL9, CXCL11, CCL3, and liver cirrhosis showed 
it is not significant and they were not included in Multivariate analysis. They should be included 
in multiple analysis since there p value is <0.10.  
  
  
Minor considerations in clude:  
 
·         Some abbreviations were used once or twice only and should be removed (like RVR, 
EVR).  
 
·         In page 4, line 27 "null responder" should be changed to "non response"  
 
·         In page 7, line 27 "would be tested" should be changed to  "was tested"  
 
·         In page 7, line 52 "producing by" should be changed to "produced by"  
 
·         In page 8, line 7 "described11" should be changed to "described."  
 
·         In page 13, line 7 "may explained" should be changed to "may explain  
 
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 addi tional 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, e ither 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 relatin g 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.  
 
1-no  2-no  3-no  4-no  5-no  6-no 
 
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 Acces s 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 c omments 
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:  CCL4 Is the Only Predictor for Non -Responder in GT -1 CHC Patients with Favorable 
IL28B genotype Treated with PegIFN/RBV  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Oct 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Gamal El -Sayed  Shiha  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
 
The key notes are:  
 
·         In Table (1): HCV RNA log10 level shows high SD, indicating non -normal distribution. It 
is better to show numbers in median (IQR) and use Mann -Whitney test for comparison.  
 
·         In Table (2): Univariate analysis of CCL3 showed it is not significa nt (p=0.064) and it was 
not included in Multivariate analysis. However. According to authors (Page 9 line 14), 
"Variables that achieved a statistical significance less than 0.10 on univariate analysis were 
entered into multivariate logistic regression anal ysis", so CCL3 should be included in multiple 
analysis.  
 
·         In Table (3): HCV RNA log10 level shows high SD, indicating non -normal distribution. It 
is better to show numbers in median (IQR) and use Mann -Whitney test for comparison.  
 
·         In Tab le (4): Univariate analysis of CXCL9, CXCL11, CCL3, and liver cirrhosis showed 
it is not significant and they were not included in Multivariate analysis. They should be included 
in multiple analysis since there p value is <0.10.  
  
  
Minor considerations in clude:  
 
·         Some abbreviations were used once or twice only and should be removed (like RVR, 
EVR).  
 
·         In page 4, line 27 "null responder" should be changed to "non response"  
 
·         In page 7, line 27 "would be tested" should be changed to  "was tested"  
 
·         In page 7, line 52 "producing by" should be changed to "produced by"  
 
·         In page 8, line 7 "described11" should be changed to "described."  
 
·         In page 13, line 7 "may explained" should be changed to "may explain  
 
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 addi tional 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, e ither 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 relatin g 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.  
 
1-no  2-no  3-no  4-no  5-no  6-no 
 
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 Acces s 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 c omments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant