Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1021-1 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Epstein -Barr virus infection is associated  with a higher Child -Pugh score and may predict 
poor prognoses for patients with liver cirrhosis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 02 May 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research question s? (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 COMME NTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: Summary of the revision assessment  
The authors of the study revised the manuscript according to the suggestions included in the peer 
review.  
Regarding the comments for the Introduction, the authors have added the references to Vi ne et 
al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012, Ulug et al. J Infect Dev Ctries 2010 and Gupta et al. J Med 
Virol 2013.  
Regarding the suggestion for qPCR analysis, the authors have provided the information for the 
TaqMan Kit.  
Regarding the results section, the au thors have responded that liver biopsy was not performed, so 
they could not analyze the histological changes of patients with EBV -infected. As to EBV 
infection, they responded that EBV infection was likely a reactivation rather than a primary 
infection.  
For the Discussion section, the authors have added the recommended reference by Petrova et al. 
World J Gastroenterol. 2006. Also, they clearly explained that they could not show survival 
curves for the Child -Pugh score.  
Also, the authors have included the number and the year of the ethical approval.  
In addition, the authors have made the requested editing corrections on pages 11 and 12 of the 
manuscript.  
 
Conclusion  
The authors have responded to all the suggestions and corrections in the peer review. Therefore, 
the present research article can be recommended as a technically sound contribution. The results 
of the study will be interesting for both gastroenterologists and virologists.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
The authors have performed all the corrections included in the peer review. Thus, the study can 
be considered as a technically sound research contribution.  
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
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 publi cation 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publi cation of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the  reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 rep ort 
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 understa nd 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