General comments

The author(s) determined the prevalence of hepatitis B and C among type 2 diabetic patients in a state in Nigeria. The major strength is the target population while the major weakness is the poor statistical analysis and the overall poor presentation of the manuscript. The author(s) are advice to get a qualified statistician to do the analyses. There are also so many grammatical errors. My suggestions to improve on the quality of the manuscripts are outlined above.

Compulsory REVISION comments

Abstract • Lines 13 – 15: sentence is not clear, rephrase. The prevalence of HBV was not the same for diabetics and control. Check your statistical analysis. How many cases (%) of coinfection were detected? • Lines 16 – 18 is not true from my statistics.

Introduction • The introduction is incomprehensible. You need to write the introduction all over. • What do you mean by T1DM or T2DM? Define all abbreviations at first use. • Line 21 – 27: this is the worst way to introduce a concept. The sentence is too long and confusing. Rephrase. • Lines 29 – 32: not clear. Which chronic disease(s) are you talking about? • Lines 32 – 36: why only HCV? Is HBV not also a major cause of hepatocellular carcinoma? • Lines 41 – 44: not true. Is it the same needle or syringe that is used over and over? Certainly not applicable today. • Lines 47 – 50: not clear, rephrase sentence.

Methods • Lines 62 – 65: what do you mean by cross-sectional pattern? Is it a method of sampling? Rephrase the sentence. • It is not mentioned how ALT, AST and ALP were measured. • How was sample size determined? What was the technique used in sampling participants? • What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Results The statistical analysis is poorly done. Get a qualified statistician to do the analysis all over. • Lines 88 – 89 and Table 1 shows that the participants were not matched for age or sex. This is contradictory to lines 10 -12 in the abstract. Get it straight. • Rephrase the title of table 1. • Was the measurement of ALT, AST, and ALP part of the objectives? This should clearly be stated in the background and should also be reflected in the title. • ALT, AST and ALP concentrations are compared between diabetics and control only. It calls to my attention as to why were they measured in the first place. Their concentrations should also be compared between HBV+ve, HCV+ve, HBV/HCV+ve, and HBV or HCV–neg groups, between diabetics and controls. A more appropriate test will be ANOVA if the data meets all the assumptions or its non-parametric equivalents if all the assumptions are not met. This also applies to lines 98 – 101 and figure 1. • Lines 96 – 98 is not true. Analysis by chi-square shows that there was no significant difference. Besides, your totals in table 1 do not add up. There were 192 diabetics and 120 controls. The prevalence rates reported are equally wrong. Get a qualified statistician to do the analysis all over. • Lines 116 – 117 and conclusion not true. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of HCV between diabetics and controls.

Discussion The discussion will need to be rewritten all over after proper statistical analysis.

Minor REVISION comments • Lines 213 – 224 is not necessary, delete. • Present the references in the format prescribed by the journal. • Figure 2 and 3 are of no use. Delete.