12-Month Trajectories of Health-Related Quality of Life Following Hospitalization in German Cancer Centers—A Secondary Data Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this work. Below I present some questions with the aim of helping to improve the presentation of the work carried out.

- no information on how much time the respondent needed to complete the self-sent questionnaire

- The discussion should be expanded. There are several major results that were not well discussed. The section must be improved and the references from other studies added.

- The conclusion must be more concrete and in accordance with the objectives. The data included could be in the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I was grateful for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. The manuscript is well structured and contains meaningful content that can improve health-related quality of life. However, please revise some minor contents as follows:

 In the abstract section, PCS and MCS are described without full name introduction, which requires revision.

In the introduction section, the terminology is explained in full name and abbreviation, and then the full name and abbreviation are repeatedly used at the same time, so revision is required.

yes)

- Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs): lines 56, 72

- Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): 103, 110, 139

- physical component scores (PCS), mental component scores (MCS): repeated use in lines 347 and 350

- Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs): repeated use at line 412

 Rather than repeatedly explaining the results of this study in the discussion section, we expect that the value of the study will be further increased by adding a comparative discussion with related previous studies.

In addition, the strengths and limitations of this study have been described, but please add future research directions based on this.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations on the present paper! The author's efforts were nicely illustrated in the results sections.

However, I have two remarks.

1. The discussion section should be extended. There are too many results that should be extensively discussed.

2. The authors should increase the citation number.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for re-uploading the modified version. All suggestions have been taken into account.