Title: Pathological and radiological assessment of benign breast lesions with BIRADS IVc/V
subtypes. Should we repeat the biopsy?
Version: 0 Date: 18 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled "Pathological
and radiological assessment of benign breast lesions with BIRADS IVc_V subtypes. Should we
repeat the biopsy". The manuscript is well written and appropriately organized. The major issue
with this study is the lack of novelty. Similar studies have been frequently reported in literature
and the study does not add that much to our current knowledge. I would like to invite the authors
to revise their manuscript considering the following points:
- The conclusion section of your abstract only repeats your study findings with no definite
interpretation. It needs to be revised thoroughly. I suggest providing a statement that mentions
the overarching clinical implications of your findings and explains why your findings are
relevant/important and how they can shape future research.
- To help introduce the rationale, please consider including information about what has already
been studied and what question or questions remain unanswered that this study is designed to
address.
- Instead of "Materials and Methods" please use "Patients and Methods".
- Please provide more information about the radiologists reading the imaging studies, including
their level of experience. Were they breast imaging fellowship trained? Were they blind to the
final pathological diagnosis?
- Was there any follow-up on these cases?
- Wo did the biopsy? How experienced were they?
- You have used different fonts throughout the text. Please use t only one font.
- The first sentence of line 138 is confusing: "The study population was all females (92%) aged
40 years or older". What does that 92% is referring to?
- Please move the study limitations to before conclusion section.
- Although you briefly mention the need for further studies, the statement is rather general. I
suggest elaborating on this statement with a few directions for future research that are supported
by your current results and would benefit the field.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As above. The main issue is lack of novelty. The manuscript is not adding to our knowledge.