All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript was significantly improved after addressing all the Reviewers' comments. As a consequence, it is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.
Two experts assessed your manuscript and are positive about the publication of it after addressing the minor points raised.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Language and grammar
The English language and grammar could be improved. There are some orthographical and redaction errors. Some examples include lines 10, 24, 31, 134, but the whole text should be reviewed to ensure the correct writing.
Literature and background
The information provided in the background is brief and concrete, which makes understanding simple.
Some comments on grammar and language are mentioned on the PDF.
Structure, figures, and tables
The structure of the article is good and organized. However, figures are disorganized and appear to have low quality. This should be corrected, especially in Figure 1.
Research question
The research question is well defined, discussed and concluded.
Rigorous investigation
The approaches and methodologies used are appropriate to answer the initial question. However, I do wonder if 9 articles are enough to have statistically robust results.
Methods
Methodology is appropriate and understandable.
I consider data is well validated and conclusions are in accordance to what was done in the paper.
In general, the research question is interesting, and the methodologies used are appropriate to answer it, also, the results are well interpreted in the discussions.
There are some questions regarding the discussion in the PDF file, that might complement the information already given.
It is a work of great relevance in the area of epidemiology in pediatric HIV. It highlights the importance of knowledge about the seropositivity of children and their adherence to antiviral treatment. In addition to the fact that it is beneficial for children to know their condition in order to integrate it into their way of life. It the importance of keeping the population informed about this viral infection, the caregivers and health personnel, and the family, but with enough information to avoid discrimination and family disintegration. Children's cognitive ability and maturity should be taken into account in disclosing their seropositive status. This study reveals that it is of great benefit for adherence to antiviral treatment that the child knows their status, and that in Ethiopia the percentage of seropositive children who know their seropositivity is low compared to other countries. The predictors to determine whether the child is aware or not were that the caregiver was seronegative and that the child was older than 10 years.
No comment
The statistical tests applied to the meta-analysis were adequate, so the review has statistical validity.
To improve the clarity of the graphs, I did not find the graph that shows the data that shows that the seronegative caregiver is a predictor. They could include it, as well as a better-formatted table to make it more accessible to the reader. Improve the clarity of graphics. I did not find the graph of the data that shows that the seronegative caregiver is a predictor. They could include it, as well as a better-formatted table to make it more accessible to the reader. It could improve the discussion regarding other similar studies in other countries, and the impact of knowledge of seropositive status in children. Can you explain why Egger's test for your analysis? Give more emphasis to the relevance of her work and a possible strategy for children to be aware of their seropositivity at earlier ages.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.