Next Article in Journal
Multiple Concurrent Causal Relationships and Multiple Governance Pathways for Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention Policies in Pandemics: A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Based on 102 Countries and Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Psychological Intervention Based on Mental Relaxation to Manage Stress in Female Junior Elite Soccer Team: Improvement in Cardiac Autonomic Control, Perception of Stress and Overall Health
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 2
10.3390/ijerph20020944
Review Report
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Assessment of the Impact of Pentafecta Parameters Affecting the Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 944; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20020944
by Mateusz Wojtarowicz *, Adam Przepiera, Artur Lemiński, Adam Gołąb and Marcin Słojewski
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Monika Rucinska
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 944; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20020944
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published: 4 January 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors assessed the impact of pentafecta parameters affecting the Quality of Life of patients undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Interesting topic but poorly presented. Please perform some statistical calculations to show the significance of your results. Please include figure legends.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your evaluation. I am glad that you pointed out the factors that I omitted. I have included the answers to your comments in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a good job in a prospective, non-randomised, single-center, open-label, non-controlled study. The manuscript is well written, and brings novelty to this field of urology. They present a good overview of quality of life in intubated patients. 

However, the authors should carry out a grammatical revision to correct small errors throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

I am very grateful for the time I spent to make this work better. We reviewed the work once again in terms of grammar and vocabulary. We have made corrections to make the work more readable.

Reviewer 3 Report

How do these margins affect quality of life? I understand that there may be 2 issues at stake - the stress of "leaving" the cancer and the need for complementary radiation therapy, so again, stress and long treatment and complications of that treatment. Observation time short, so late complications of radiotherapy are not observed.

Please add if and how many patients received  radiotherapy after surgery. Were there any differences in quality of life between men who were irradiated and those who were not.

Please describe in more detail what "complications" are hidden under this term.

It is worth mentioning that the follow-up time is short and, in fact, the article is about early quality of life after surgery.

Figure 2 not very pertinent, could be reworked into some more pictorial one.
In table 3 AND 4 necessary to add description - not sure if cases or %.

In the summary necessary some sentence for the future , because there only a summary of the results.

 

Author Response

I am very grateful for the time I spent to make this work better. Your comments were very helpful. I have included the answers in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop