Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Surveillance Mammography Screening Behaviors in Black and White
Breast Cancer Survivors: Utilizing the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factors and
Surveillance System Data
Version: 
1 
Date: 
19 Jul 2022
Reviewer: 
Longla Acheliu
Reviewer's report:
Given that breast cancer is the most common cancer globally and in the USA
(excluding skin cancer) the research is definitely important for public health. The
writing style used in the manuscript by the authors is clear and the grammar is
optimal. However, there were a couple of issues which are highlighted below. 
Background
-I think this section is a bit long. Making it very concise while stating how this
current research is different from previous ones in the same field is key. Also, the
background section ideally should end with the objectives/aims of the current
analysis. I dont think putting a sub-heading (Aims) is the best way to write the
aims of this study. It should be within the body of this section. 
Methods
- Inclusion criteria: Please what is the rationale for including women if they had
no missing values of their last mammogram (line 58). 
- For the independent variables (line 40) the catgorization of age is not very
clear. I guess the first category should be <50 not >50.
- For data analysis (line 40-42), how was the interaction tested? I believe it is
better to clearly state how this was done i.e. generation of an interaction term ???
- On line 57 the authors also mentioned that mean and mode inputation was used
to handle missing data. What was the percentage of missing data in the whole
data set and the proposed pattern of missing data. Furthermore, using means and
mode to inpute missing values can bias the results of the study. There are better
ways of handling missing data like multiple inputation, although it depends on
the mechanism of missing data. 
- For multivariable analysis, I think it is better to state all the variables that were
considered for the analysis and the rationale that was used to select these
variables. 
Results
- Table 1: Generally, I think this table could be inproved upon. There is no clear
distinction between the variables and their categories. Secondly, I believe that
for independent variables with three or more categories, there should be two or
more p-values for each variable. Also, since the table includes a chi-square
analysis, I think it is better to report the the row percentatges (not column) so that
they can be compared for the different categories of each variable found on each
row. 
- Table 2: I think the table is not well-formatted because the column for adjusted
ORs does not align with the heading. Also, the variables are not clearly
distinquished from the categories and the reference category should come first
before the other categories. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
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 publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes