Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Impact of childbirth history on dense breast in mammographic screening:
a cross-sectional study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
01 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
PBMWH-D-22-00060
I would like to thank you for the great work of the manuscript titled the Impact
of childbirth history on dense breast in mammographic screening: a
crosssectional study. The study could add more knowledge to the existing
knowledge in terms of ethnicity-specific results. Please take into consideration
when you revise your manuscript for the following major notes. 
Introduction 
In this sentence ", there is a scarcity of studies regarding the association between
a history of childbirth and mammographic density [8-19]." Do you consider 12
references are not enough studies? Please review your citations for this sentence. 
Methods 
For this sentence " For women who revisited the screening several times, only
the data at the first visit was extracted". Could you please justify why?
For this sentence "The items of their characteristics compared in this study was
selected, based on previous studies [8, 11, 16]" Please give a brief definition or
description for the characteristics of the population although you have cited
them. For instance, how did you define current and previous smoker, alcohol
status, and hormonal therapy?
For the multivariate analysis model, it is a rule of thumb to add the variables that
were significant or had p-value <0.25 in the univariate analysis. Considering this
rule in your analysis, will you have similar results and conclusions? 
Results section 
The results are too wordy. Please summarize the main important results for each
table.
You do not have to mention all the results in the table in your text. You do not
have to write 95% CI and the p-value for every single test.
Please consider the note in the methodology for re-evaluating the multivariate
analysis. 
Discussion section 
Please do not repeat the results again in the discussion section 
Instead,
summarize and discuss the main findings "The adjusted OR for dense breast was
1.425 (95%CI: 1.102- 1.844) for women with two parity, 2.279 (95%CI: 1.755-
2.959) for women with single parity, and 3.128 10 (2.437-4.013) for women with
nulliparity in comparison with women with more than two parity as reference in
premenopausal women"
The same thing for this part "As for postmenopausal women, the adjusted OR for
dense breast was 1.849 (95%CI: 1.479-2.312) for women with two parity, 3.023
(2.385-3.830) for women with single parity, and 4.954 (3.975-6.174) for women
with nulliparity in comparison with women with more than two parity as
reference."
The authors address one of the major limitations in the research which is
breastfeeding. 
However, the drawn conclusion could be different if this variable
is available. 
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' below.
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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
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?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes