The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the most common bloodborne viral infections reported in Pakistan. Frequent dialysis treatment of hemodialysis patients exposes them to a high risk of HCV infection. The main purpose of this paper is to quantify the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Pakistani Journals Online and Web of Science to identify studies published between 1 January 1995 and 30 October 2019, reporting on the prevalence of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to obtain pooled estimates. A funnel plot was used in conjunction with Egger's regression test for asymmetry and to assess publication bias. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to identify potential sources of heterogeneity among the included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019159345).
RESULTS: Out of 248 potential studies, 19 studies involving 3446 hemodialysis patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan was 32.33% (95% CI: 25.73-39.30; I2 = 94.3%, p < 0.01). The subgroup analysis showed that the prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients in Punjab was significantly higher (37.52%; 95% CI: 26.66-49.03; I2 = 94.5, p < 0.01) than 34.42% (95% CI: 14.95-57.05; I2 = 91.3%, p < 0.01) in Baluchistan, 27.11% (95% CI: 15.81-40.12; I2 = 94.5, p < 0.01) in Sindh and 22.61% (95% CI: 17.45-28.2; I2 = 78.6, p < 0.0117) in Khyber Pukhtoonkhuwa.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found a high prevalence (32.33%) of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan. Clinically, hemodialysis patients require more attention and resources than the general population. Preventive interventions are urgently needed to decrease the high risk of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan.

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the most commonly reported viral infections in both developing and developed countries, causing significant mortality and morbidity and costing billions of dollars annually [1, 2]. The prevalence rate of HCV infection in hemodialysis varies substantially among different geographical regions [3-5]. Recent studies have shown that the HCV prevalence in hemodialysis patients varies from 1.4%–28.3% in developed countries and 4.7%–41.9% in developing countries [6]. Patients on hemodialysis are at a very high risk of HCV infection due to repeated blood transfusions, frequent hospitalization and infected hemodialysis units with HCV. HCV and its associated complications have a significant impact on the life expectancy of hemodialysis patients. Hemodialysis patients with HCV infection are at a higher risk of death than uninfected hemodialysis patients [7, 8].

Pakistan is a developing country, and, according to the human development index of the United Nations, it stands at 150th position out of 189 countries and territories. In the South Asian region, Pakistan’s neighbours have a much lower human development index: Iran (60th), India (130th) and Bangladesh (136th) [9]. The health system in Pakistan is below international standards. Transfusion with HCV contaminated blood and dialysis units are the major risk factors for the spread of hepatitis C in hemodialysis patients. It is estimated that nearly 40% of blood transfusions in Pakistan are not screened for any infectious diseases [10].

Multiple studies have reported the prevalence of HCV infection among hemodialysis patients in Pakistan [11-29]. To the best of our knowledge, no official nationwide survey or national health registry has to date estimated the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan. The prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients varies significantly among these published studies (from 16.8% to 68%) [12, 14]. This study aims to draw on the available published papers from Pakistan to systematically identify, select, review, summarize and estimate the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients. This study may aid in measuring the countrywide pooled prevalence of HCV in the absence of a national registry in Pakistan for the measurement of the prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients. The findings of this study may also aid in developing a management policy to reduce this perceived prevalence. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that estimate the pooled prevalence of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan.

Methods

Design

This study was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [30]. The protocol of this study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), with registration number CRD42019159345.

Search strategy

In this review, two authors (AS and RM) independently searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Pakistani Journals Online and Web of Science to identify all articles published from 1 January 1995 to 30 October 2019, reporting on the prevalence of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan. We searched using keywords such as ‘HCV’, ‘Hepatitis C’, ‘dialysis’, ‘hemodialysis’, ‘prevalence’ and ‘Pakistan’; variations of these terms were also searched. In addition, we searched the reference lists of the included articles to identify additional studies that were not detected by the electronic searches.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used in this study. Studies were included in the meta-analyses if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals only, (2) were conducted in Pakistan, (3) reported on the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients, (4) were published in the English language and (5) focused on hemodialysis patients over the age of 18 years. Studies were excluded if they (1) were published in a non-English language, (2) were case series, reviews, letters and editorials or commentaries, (3) did not contain data on the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients, (4) contained duplicate (overlapping) data (i.e. were used in more than one article; in such cases, the up-to-date data were considered) and (5) included Pakistani communities living outside Pakistan.

Data collection

Two authors (AS and RM) independently extracted the data from the included studies onto a predefined data extraction form. The extracted information contained the following information: surname of the first author, year of publication, baseline study year, study geographical region, proportion of men, average age of hemodialysis patients, sampling design, sample size and methodological quality of each study. The authors agreed that they would settle their disagreement, if any, through discussion or referral to a third author (JAN).

Methodological quality of the included studies

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed through the tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [31]. The JBI tool consists of nine questions (see Appendix-1 for details). For each question, a score was assigned (0 for ‘yes’ and 1 for ‘no’); the scores were summarized across the items to attain a total quality score that ranged from 0 to 9. Studies were then categorized according to the awarded points; a point of 7–9, 5–7 or 0–4 was rated as having a high, medium or low risk of bias, respectively. Two authors (AS and RM) independently assessed the methodological quality of each included study. They agreed to settle their disagreement, if any, by mutual consensus or referral to a third author (JAN) for a final decision. The checklist for the methodological quality appraisal of the included studies is presented in the supplementary file (S1 Appendix).

Statistical analyses

Meta-analysis was conducted using statistical software R, version 3.5.2 [32]. We used the ‘meta’ and ‘metafor’ packages in R to pool the prevalence across the studies, which was performed using random-effects models of the DerSimonian and Laird method. A forest plot was used to visually display the prevalence estimates with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the presence of heterogeneity (as expected and observed), random-effect models have better properties and are more conservative than fixed-effect models [33,34]. The Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation was used to stabilize the variance of the raw prevalence of each included study [35]. Heterogeneity among the included studies was evaluated using the Cochran Q test and quantified using I2 statistic [36, 37]. The heterogeneity among the studies was categorized as I2-values of 75%, 50% and 25%, which were considered as having high, moderate and low levels of heterogeneity, respectively [38, 39]. Statistical significance was considered at a p-value of less than 0.10 using 2-tailed tests. To explore the possible reasons for heterogeneity, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted by geographical region, sample size, year of publication, year of data collection, gender and average age of the patients. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were used to investigate the presence of publication bias [40], with a p-value of < 0.10 being considered as statistically significant. We also used the ‘Trim and Fill’ procedure (nonparametric method) to further evaluate the asymmetry of the funnel plot [38].

Results

Literature search

We initially identified 248 potential articles from a comprehensive literature search. After the elimination of duplicates, 73 articles remained. We screened the titles and abstracts and excluded 31 irrelevant articles. We scrutinized the full text of the remaining 42 articles for eligibility, of which 23 were excluded with valid reasons. Finally, only 19 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, whose data were extracted accordingly. Drawing on the PRISMA flow diagram [30], the flow diagram of the study inclusion process is presented in Fig 1. The PRISMA checklist is presented in the supplementary file (S1 Checklist).

Fig 1

Flow diagram of identification and selection of studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis, following the PRISMA 2009 guidelines [30].

Characteristics of the selected studies

The details and main characteristics of the 19 selected studies [11-29] are presented in Table 1. Twelve studies had used a cross-sectional research design, while seven studies did not explicitly specify their research design. Nine studies had used a convenient sampling strategy to select their representative sample while the other nine studies did not explicitly describe their sampling procedure; only one study had used a random sampling strategy. The number of hemodialysis patients per study ranged from 28 to 500, with a total of 3446 patients across all studies. The included articles were published between 2002 and 2019, while the period of participant inclusion was from 1999 to 2018. Four geographical regions (provinces) of Pakistan were represented in the articles: three studies were conducted in Sindh, 10 studies in Punjab, four studies in Khyber Pukhtoonkhuwa and two studies in Baluchistan. The average duration of dialysis of hemodialysis patients was reported in nine studies. Most of the studies (9 out of 19) reported the HCV prevalence using the results from the ELIZA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) test. Only five studies reported the confirmation of HCV infection by the RNA (Ribonucleic acid) test. Two studies used the CILA (chemiluminescence immunoassay) method for the confirmation of HCV. Three studies did not explicitly refer to any type of test used for the HCV antibody. The proportion of male participants ranged from 14.38% to 71.13%. The average age of participants ranged from 36.5 to 55.2 years. Thirteen articles had reported the gender of their participants. After assessing the methodological quality of the studies, 15 were found to have a low risk of bias, four had a medium quality, and no article was found with poor quality.

Table 1

Description and list of characteristics of the included studies.

Author	Year	Year of Data Collection	Province	Sampling Method	Study design	Method use to diagnose HCV	Sample size	Total infected people of HCV	Prevalence of HCV	% of male participant	Age (year)	Mean Duration of dialysis (months)	Methodological Quality
Butt et al. [11]	2019	2017–2018	Sindh	Convenient Sampling	NA	RNA	80	31	38.750	35.48	36.5	40.44	Low Risk Bias
Mahmud et al.[12]	2014	2012–2013	Sindh	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	CLIA	189	31	16.402	49.7	51.88	NA	Low Risk Bias
Chishti et al. [13]	2015	2010–2011	Sindh	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	ELIZA	200	58	29.000	34.5	NA	NA	Low Risk Bias
Gul et al. [14]	2003	1999	Punjab	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	NA	50	34	68.000	NA	NA	NA	Medium Risk Bias
Mumtaz et al. [15]	2009	2008	Punjab	NA	Cross-Sectional	NA	50	14	28.000	NA	42.3	NA	Medium Risk Bias
Anwar et al. 16]	2016	2012–2013	Punjab	Random Sampling	Cross-Sectional	RNA	60	14	23.333	71.7	NA	NA	Low Risk Bias
Khokhar et al. [17]	2005	2002–2003	Punjab	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	ELIZA	97	23	23.711	66	54.26	34.8	Low Risk Bias
Shafi et al. [18]	2003	2000–2002	Punjab	NA	NA	ELIZA	122	24	19.672		NA	NA	Low Risk Bias
Shafi et al. [19]	2017	NA	Punjab	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	ELIZA	180	49	27.222	68.45	48.7	98.4	Low Risk Bias
Shafi et al. [20]	2002	2001–2002	Punjab	NA	NA	ELIZA	190	47	24.737	36.32	38.6	29.3	Low Risk Bias
Ismail et al.[21]	2016	2016–2016	Punjab	Random Sampling	Cross-Sectional	NA	190	93	48.947	70	43.68	25.46	Medium Risk Bias
Kiani et al. [22]	2018	2016	Punjab	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	ELIZA	201	128	63.682	Na	NA	4.5	Low Risk Bias
Hussain et al. [23]	2019	2016–2017	Punjab	NA	NA	ELIZA	230	123	53.478	30	49.7	NA	Low Risk Bias
Ali et al. [24]	2011	NA	Khyber Pakhtunkhwa	NA	NA	RNA	28	7	25.000	NA	NA	NA	Low Risk Bias
Khan et al. [25]	2011	2010	Khyber Pakhtunkhwa	Convenient Sampling	NA	RNA	384	112	29.167	63.557	40.9	80.4	Low Risk Bias
Ali et al. [26]	2019	2013–2014.	Khyber Pakhtunkhwa	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	RNA	480	94	19.583	14.38		NA	Low Risk Bias
Anjum et al. [27]	2015	2014–2015	Khyber Pakhtunkhwa	NA	Cross-Sectional	ELIZA	500	98	19.600	68.1	46	NA	Low Risk Bias
Zarkoon et al. [28]	2008	2006–2007	Baluchistan	Convenient Sampling	Cross-Sectional	ELIZA	97	23	23.711	71.132	55.2	34.8	Medium Risk Bias
Lodi et al. [29]	2019	2018	Baluchistan	NA	Cross-Sectional	CLIA	118	54	45.76	60.1	43.02	NA	Low Risk Bias

Meta-analysis

All statistical analyses of the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients are presented in Table 2. The pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis was 32.33% (95% CI: 25.73–39.30) I2 = 94.5%, based on 19 studies in a total sample of 3446 individuals. The graphical presentation of the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients is presented in the forest plot (Fig 2). The funnel plot (Fig 3) revealed no publication bias, which was confirmed by Egger’s regression test (p = 0.3154). Furthermore, no publication bias in the analysis was confirmed by Trim and Fill sensitivity analysis, as we did not find any missing study.

Table 2

Prevalence of HCV among Hemodialysis patients in Pakistan, from January 1995 to Octuber 2019.

Characteristics	Studies	Sample	Cases	Prevalence, % (95%CI)	I2, %	Heterogeneity	P-Egger test	P-Difference
Prevalence of HCV in Hemodialysis patients	19	3446	1057	32.33 (25.73–39.2)	94.3	< 0.001	0.4417
Time Period								0.2063
2002–2008	5	556	151	30.43 (18.68–43.61)	90.1	< 0.001
2009–2016	4	651	164	24.04 (16.37–32.62)	75.0	< 0.001
2017–2019	10	2239	742	36.37 (26.00–47.40)	96.3	< 0.001
Gender							0.9696	0.9818
Male	6	540	174	33.92 (20.32–48.96)	78.6	< 0.001
Female	6	290	114	33.85 (24.04–44.36)	59.7	< 0.001
By Province							0.4417	0.0946
Punjab	10	1253	503	37.51 (26.66–49.03)	94.5	< 0.001
Baluchistan	2	550	112	34.42 (14.95–57.05)	91.3	< 0.001
Sindh	3	850	236	27.11 (15.81–40.12)	88.3	< 0.001
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa	4	793	206	22.61 (17.44–28.22)	78.6	< 0.001
By dignoistic method							0.4417	0.2059
RNA	5	1032	258	26.62 (19.81–34.01)	78.6	< 0.001
CLIA	2	307	85	29.91 (6.44–61.20)	96.7	< 0.001
ELIZA	9	1817	573	31.14 (21.02–42.24)	95.8	< 0.001
NA (method not clear)	3	290	141	48.24 (29.66–67.06)	87.9	< 0.001

Fig 2

Forest plot of prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan January 1995 to October 2018.

Fig 3

Funnel plot of the prevalence HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan January 1995 to October 2018.

Heterogeneity and subgroup analysis

The subgroup analysis of the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients is presented in Table 2. Initially, the analysis was stratified by gender, and it was found that it was not statistically significant: the pooled prevalence of HCV in male hemodialysis patients was 33.92% (95% CI: 20.32–48.96, I2 = 78.6%), and the pooled prevalence of female HCV in hemodialysis patients was 33.85% (95% CI: 24.04–44.36; I2 = 78.6%). Across regions, a significant difference was observed between provinces: the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients was 37.51% (95% CI: 26.66–49.04) in Punjab, which was higher than the pooled prevalence in Baluchistan (34.42%; 95% CI: 14.95–57.05), in Sindh (27.11%; 95% CI: 15.81–40.12) and in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (22.61%; 95% CI: 17.44–28.22). Furthermore, the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients was stratified by three publication periods of 2002–2008, 2009–2016 and 2017–2019. The prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients was 30.43% (95% CI: 18.68–43.61) in the first period, 24.03% (95% CI: 16.36–32.62) in the second period and 36.36% (95% CI: 26.00–47.41) in the third period. Lastly, the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients was stratified using the diagnostic methods of HCV: RNA (26.62%; 95% CI: 19.81–34.01), CILA (29.91%; 95% CI: 6.44–61.20), ELIZA (31.14%; 95% CI: 21.02–42.24) and the unstated method NA (48.24%; 95% CI: 29.66–67.06).

No publication bias was noticed in any subgroup analyses. The univariate meta-regression revealed that the pooled prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients was not associated with the year of publication, year of data collection, male proportion, mean age of hemodialysis patients, sample size and duration of dialysis.

Discussion

The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize all available published data on the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients of Pakistan. The information provided in this study may play a positive role in improving public health interventions in the country, as there is no national registry to measure the prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan. Therefore, this study may help decrease the incidence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan. Nineteen studies based on 3446 hemodialysis patients were included in this study. The pooled HCV prevalence among hemodialysis patients in Pakistan is 32.33%, which is five times higher than the prevalence of HCV in the general Pakistani population (6.2%) [41]. This means that every third hemodialysis patient is infected with HCV in Pakistan. This may be due to a lack of education and awareness of HCV transmission, a lack of scientifically and medically qualified personnel, a lack of proper health infrastructure (e.g. the use of unsterilized instruments), non-adherence or gaps in the implementation of practices recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), inadequate use of erythropoietin or inadequate screening of HCV for donated blood [36, 42, 43]. The pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan is almost three times higher than that of a similar study (meta-analysis) conducted in neighbouring Iran (11%) [44], nearly two times higher than Taiwan (17.3%) [45] and 18.8% in India [46].

The subgroup analysis revealed that HCV infection prevalence among the hemodialysis patients was observed across all provinces in Pakistan except Gilgit-Baltistan, as we did not find any studies for this province. Our results show that the prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients is higher in Punjab (37.51%) than in Sindh (27.11%), Baluchistan (23.71%) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (22.61%). This variability may be due to differences in ethnicity, health provision system and characteristics of the study population.

It was also observed that the prevalence of HCV does not appear to be decreasing with time in Pakistan (from 30.43% in 2002–2008 to 36.37% in 2015–2019). This is because, contrary to the worldwide trend, the prevalence of HCV in the general population of Pakistan is increasing gradually [41]. Also, in developing countries, proper techniques and infection control practices are often inadequate, and the quality of medical care is often poor [47].

Our results also demonstrated that the pooled prevalence of HCV hemodialysis patients is almost similar between males (33.92%) and females (33.85%). Furthermore, meta-regression analyses showed that the changes in the prevalence of HCV among hemodialysis patients over the past two decades have not been statistically significant (i.e. considering both year of publication and year of data collection). The average age of hemodialysis patients is insignificant compared with the prevalence of HCV. Rather than age, it is the number of dialysis patients that plays a vital role in the prevalence of HCV. Currently, we do not have any data on this variable.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize all available data on the prevalence of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan. The strengths of this review are its use of a systematic and comprehensive literature search strategy with a double review process with the participation of two independent authors in the whole review process and data extraction. In addition, any disagreement between the two investigators about the extracted information was resolved by a third researcher to improve the quality of this analysis. No publication bias was found in our analysis, which suggests that we are unlikely to have missed any significant studies that could have influenced the results. Furthermore, the methodological quality of all the articles revealed a low-risk bias. As illustrated by the meta-regression analysis, the methodological quality of the studies had an insignificant effect on pooled prevalence estimates. Four major provinces of Pakistan were represented in the determination of HCV prevalence in hemodialysis patients.

This study has several limitations. First, most of the studies had a small sample size with a pooled sample size of 3446. Second, only univariate meta-regression analysis was used. We had intended to use a multivariable meta-regression analysis by considering all the factors simultaneously; however, it was not possible to use a multivariable meta-regression analysis due to the small number of studies. Third, our estimates showed significant heterogeneity, especially in the meta-analyses. This is likely that other causes of variability may have been missed in our analysis, such as the frequency of dialysis, other diseases and genetic factors, which we were not able to test due to data unavailability in the articles.

Conclusion

The pooled prevalence of HCV infection among hemodialysis patients in Pakistan was 32.33%; however, this rate varies from province to province. The observed prevalence is higher than in neighbouring countries, such as Iran and Bangladesh. Pakistan is a developing country and lacking in resources for appropriate stylized dialysis units as well as facilities in dialysis centres and hospitals. Special health education programmes for both patients and healthcare staff are required, and standard screening tests should be carried out before dialysis is performed.

JBI critical appraisal checklist applied for included studies in the systematic review.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

PRISMA 2009 checklist (adapted for KIN 4400).

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Feb 2020

PONE-D-20-00973

The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akhtar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In addition to the comments raised by reviewers, please discuss the prevalence of HCV infection among HD patients between Pakistan and the other countries in Asian-Pacific regions, especially Taiwan where incidence and prevalence of uremia ranking in the top 3 countries in the world.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ming-Lung Yu, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include as Supporting Information, the full electronic search strategy and search terms for at least one database such that it could be repeated

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors estimated the prevalence rate of HCV infection among hemodialysis patients in Pakistan through systematic review and meta-analysis process. Comments are as followed.

1. The most favored disease prevalence of any kind derives from a national registry, and the same principle applies to the prevalence of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients. This study may have presented the second best way to estimate such a prevalence rate since in Pakistan there may be no national registry and the standard of medical practice was variable in different regions. Please clearly address such a situation in the Introduction and/or Discussion sections of this manuscript.

2. Authors have stated that there is significant heterogeneity in this study, and I understand that authors have tried to manage them with random-effect model. However, some cannot be statistically managed, for example, the definition of HCV infection -- 12 by ELIZA、4 by RNA、2 by CILA、and 2 unreported (total 20, not 19?). We know that about a quarter of anti-HCV (+) patients are actually HCV virus free in the blood. Such a fact will add another level of heterogeneity in your analysis. Please consider to discuss this further in your Discussion section.

3. Authors have tried to explain the high prevalence rate as “This is maybe due to the lack of education and awareness of HCV transmission, lack of scientifically and medically qualified, trained workers, lack of proper health infrastructure (use unsterilized instruments), etc.” However, in a more accepted way, it would additionally be (i) lack of strict infection control measure in the unit, (ii) inadequate use of erythropoietin, and (iii) inadequate screening of HCV/HIV for donated blood. Please address these more important issues in the text.

4. I do not quite agree with “The prevalence rate of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients is increasing with alarming rate…”, and the references quoted are out of date. Can authors update the information?

5. In page 4, what is “Siplimentry-2”? Is it “Supplementary 2”?

Reviewer #2: This article entitled of “The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis” aimed to assess the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan." Several basic pitfalls render our reservation for publishing this article.

1. Information of the Figure 1 is not correctly display. The lines and the numbers need to be corrected.

2. The references number in the Table 1 and Appendix 2 is no match with the reference list.

3. Further English editing is suggested.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jer-Ming Chang

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Mar 2020

Dear Editor,

Thanks a lot for your response and comments. All the comments of the reviews have been carefully considered and incorporated in the revised version. The point by point response is given below here and mentioned in the revised version in track changes, as given below.

Editor Comments:

In addition to the comments raised by reviewers, please discuss the prevalence of HCV infection among HD patients between Pakistan and the other countries in Asian-Pacific regions, especially Taiwan where incidence and prevalence of uremia ranking in the top 3 countries in the world.

Answer: The References (Taiwan and India) has been added in the Discussion section.

Reviewer #1: Authors estimated the prevalence rate of HCV infection among hemodialysis patients in Pakistan through systematic review and meta-analysis process. Comments are as followed.

1. The most favored disease prevalence of any kind derives from a national registry, and the same principle applies to the prevalence of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients. This study may have presented the second best way to estimate such a prevalence rate since in Pakistan there may be no national registry and the standard of medical practice was variable in different regions. Please clearly address such a situation in the Introduction and/or Discussion sections of this manuscript.

Answer: Added accordingly in introduction and discussion section.

2. Authors have stated that there is significant heterogeneity in this study, and I understand that authors have tried to manage them with random-effect model. However, some cannot be statistically managed, for example, the definition of HCV infection -- 12 by ELIZA、4 by RNA、2 by CILA、and 2 unreported (total 20, not 19?). We know that about a quarter of anti-HCV (+) patients are actually HCV virus free in the blood. Such a fact will add another level of heterogeneity in your analysis. Please consider to discuss this further in your Discussion section.

Answer: Thank for your comments. The numbers of diagnostic tests are corrected accordingly. Further, the heterogeneity is further explored by using different diagnostic tests. Table 2 is extended accordingly and discussed in results section and discussion section.

3. Authors have tried to explain the high prevalence rate as “This is maybe due to the lack of education and awareness of HCV transmission, lack of scientifically and medically qualified, trained workers, lack of proper health infrastructure (use unsterilized instruments), etc.” However, in a more accepted way, it would additionally be (i) lack of strict infection control measure in the unit, (ii) inadequate use of erythropoietin, and (iii) inadequate screening of HCV/HIV for donated blood. Please address these more important issues in the text.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. Added, accordingly in discussion section.

4. I do not quite agree with “The prevalence rate of HCV infection in hemodialysis patients is increasing with alarming rate…”, and the references quoted are out of date. Can authors update the information?

Answer: The information is updated accordingly with some recent citation in introduction section.

5. In page 4, what is “Siplimentry-2”? Is it “Supplementary 2”?

Answer: Thank you for correction. Corrected accordingly.

Reviewer #2: This article entitled of “The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis” aimed to assess the pooled prevalence of HCV in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan." Several basic pitfalls render our reservation for publishing this article.

1. Information of the Figure 1 is not correctly display. The lines and the numbers need to be corrected.

Answer: Corrected accordingly.

2. The references number in the Table 1 and Appendix 2 is no match with the reference list.

Answer: Corrected accordingly.

3. Further English editing is suggested.

Answer: English is edited significantly throughout the paper.

10 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-00973R1

The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akhtar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please revised the Figure 1.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 25 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ming-Lung Yu, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The flowchart of the Figure 1 is not completely revised. The displaying number in the flowchart is misleading at the present status.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jer-Ming Chang

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Apr 2020

Reviewer #2:

The flowchart of the Figure 1 is not completely revised. The displaying number in the flowchart is misleading at the present status.

Answer: Thank you once again for your comment. The flowchart of the figure 1 has been revised accordingly.

27 Apr 2020

The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-20-00973R2

Dear Dr. Akhtar,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Ming-Lung Yu, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

5 May 2020

PONE-D-20-00973R2

The prevalence of hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis patients in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Akhtar:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ming-Lung Yu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE