Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The tumour response of postmenopausal hormone r eceptor -positive breast cancers 
undergoing different types of neoadjuvant therapy: A meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Davide Mauri  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Nice work and interesting  
 
however the level of evidence is low due to the low quality of the studies included in the meta -
analysis (actually available information)  
 
Conclusions from analyses are clearly state d, however the long discussion make unclear that the 
conclusions are not strong enogh to give firm recommendations for clinical practice.  
 
However, the resuslts are of value in giving some indications for clinitians (since are 
comprehensive cumulative data from the scant actual evidence)  
 
 
So: 
 
1) interesting issue  
 
2) Method OK  
 
3) good work  
 
4) PLEASE, DO NOT MAKE FIRM CONCLUSIONS BUT JUST GIVE INDICATION FROM 
THE AVAILABLE POOL -DATA OF S TUDIES OF LOW LEVEL OF EVIDENCE ( 
UNDERSCORE THE LIMIT OF THE STUDY (PRIMARY STUDIES INCLUDED) AND 
REDUCE MOLECULAR DISCUSSION - IT IS NOT PART OF ANALYSES PERFORMED)  
 
5) Since the study report the comprehensive available evidence on this issue, I think that it could 
be accepted under the  assumptions of a better undescoring of the limit of the study and a 
reducing the long confonder discussion.  
 
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 w hich 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 manuscript or would y ou recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 financial ly from the 
publication 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 financi ally 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 organiz ation 
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 th e above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agre e to the open peer review policy of the journal