Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Comparison of the indocyanine green dye method versu s the combined method of indigo 
carmine blue dye with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging fo r sentinel lymph node biopsy 
in breast co nservative therapy for stage ≤IIA breast cancer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Mar 2018  
 
Reviewer: Elena Provenzano  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The paper describes a single institution experience of SLN localisation using green dye versus 
blue dye with green fluorescence. The findings are of interest, however some minor corrections 
are required prior to publication.  
 
Reading the paper the number o f operators involved is not clear. There needs to be a comment as 
to the number of surgeons involved across the time period and their level of experience. If this 
changed between the two methods it could act as a confounding variable.  
 
Similarly, were the two techniques used concurrently or are the study periods using the two 
methods consecutive? If they are consecutive then there could be an effect due to increased 
operator experience improving results with the second method. This cannot be changed, but 
needs to be mentioned in the discussion section.  
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an a dditional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
Not relevant to this manuscript  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Acceptable  
Declaration of competing interes ts 
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 pu blication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 currently 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.  
 
I declare that I have  no competing interests  
 
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 report 
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 understand 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