Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Clinical observation of the regeneration process of defects after breast
cancer resection
Version: 
0 
Date: 
15 Dec 2020
Reviewer: 
Joseph Abi Jaoude
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, I have no COI to
disclose. 
The authors present an interesting study analyzing the use of filling materials for
patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. The authors show that 2 filling
materials (gelatin or cellulose) gave better cosmetic results when compared to no
intervention at all, and did not negatively affect clinical and surgical outcomes.
The study would be interesting to the readers of BMC Women's Health, as it
offers surgeons and females with breast cancer a simple but effective
intervention to improve any negative cosmetic effects. 
Few suggestions:
"Among these patients, 35 patients received conventional breast-conserving
surgery, and 72 patients received breast-conserving surgery plus filling
implantation (36 patients in the oxidized regenerated cellulose group and 36
patients in the gelatin sponge group). All patients had small to medium sized
breasts (cup size A and B)." Would consider moving this to the results section of
the abstract instead of the methods, Seems like a description of the sample. 
The authors could add some numbers and p-values to the abstract. 
The background section is a bit lengthy, I suggest the authors shorten it to one
page. 
Was the study prospective or retrospective? Could the authors clarify this in their
methods section? Also, if it was retrospective, then the authors should refrain
from saying "patients were enrolled", but rather say "patients were included".
Throughout the text, please use "patients with…" rather than "breast cancer
patients, or diabetic patients…" 
The sub-title "Method" seems weird… Maybe join 1 and 2 under "Study design
and population"? Or "1. Patient population" and then split 2 into "2. Surgical
Resection" and "3. Artificial material filling"? 
In the results section, please always include frequencies and percentages (and not
one or the other). 
The authors could add the percentages between parentheses. 
The results section in the main text also seems a bit dry (like the abstract), and I
suggest the authors add some p-values (and percentages as previously
mentioned).
The authors should add a limitation section at the end of their discussion right
before the conclusion. 
The discussion is interesting and well-written,.
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.
None
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?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes