Title: Clinical effect of ultrasound-guided microwave ablation in the treatment of 60 patients
with non- puerperal mastitis
Version: 4 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have reported a retrospective experience using
microwave ablation to treat non-puerperal mastitis. The authors report a 93% cure rate with
acceptable morbidity.  They have revised the manuscript based on reviewer comments.  This is an
innovative idea and the manuscript is interesting.  Overall, as they report in the cover letter, they
have addressed the reviewer comments.  However, I have some additional recommendations to
enhance the manuscript.
1. In the background, it is unclear under what rationale the authors decided to use microwave
ablation to treat mastitis.  Did they have the idea based on a prior publication or based on some
hypothesis about the pathophysiology of mastitis? It would really enhance the manuscript if the
authors could explain the rationale / motivation to use this technology to treat mastitis, both in
Background / Introduction and Discussion.
2. How does this treatment work to cure mastitis? They should discuss in the Discussion.
3. The authors interpret their results as satisfactory and advocate this treatment modality for
mastitis. However, how do these outcomes measures after microwave compare with other
options, such as symptomatic treatment with antibiotics or surgical intervention? The authors
should summarize the outcomes of existing treatment options, so that the readers can interpret
the results with more insight.
4. In the ultrasound images, the authors need to do some labeling for the readers to understand
and interpret the images.
5. I believe that the Discussion language sounds informal intermittently. I suggest the authors
to review the Discussion and use more objective and diplomatic language when interpreting the
results.  For instance :
“The duration of follow-up is short, and we will continue to follow-up the patients over the next
few years.”
“…and the cosmetic effect is good.”
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see my comments above"