Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Clinical observation of the regeneration process of defects after breast
cancer resection
Version: 
0 
Date: 
18 Aug 2020
Reviewer: 
Longla Acheliu
Reviewer's report:
Generally the article was well-written,with an interesting subject and easy to
follow but I propose the following changes that can help to improve on the
quality of the work. 
Abstract is OK
Background - Provide reference for the first sentence
- on line 10, accelerated is not a good word, and 1-2% higher in countries with a
high incidence is not really informative. The incidence in China should be stated
and compared with that for specific countries with a high incidence.
- surgery is a better word on line 24 than operation
Methods - I do not really know your study design. is it a prospective, cross-
sectional or case control study? please you need to state it clearly
- study site not clearly stated
- outcome and predictor variables should clearly be stated and defined 
- I will also like to know why you excluded diabetics or people with mastitis and
poor diabetic control.
- The Harvard/NSABP/RTOG Breast Cosmetic Grading Scale was used to
access the cosmetic effect of the implants but you didn't highlight what this scale
is or reference an article that we can use to learn about the scale
- line 29 under statistical analysis, it is data analysis not processing
- you need to elaborate on how you will do your data analysis. What did you use
the X2 test and t-test to measure. Typically to compare the three groups of
patients, you need carryout further statistical analysis by controlling for con-
founders, which I did not see.
Results and discussion - all the p-values reported in the tables are either > or <
0.005 but the values obtained from the analysis has to be stated
- the sub-headings of table 3 are not clearly separated
The language used in the article is good likewise the presentation but a lot of
clarifications have to be made on the article, especially the in the methods
section 
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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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?
No
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?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes