Quality of Life after Radical Prostatectomy: A Longitudinal Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and well-written article. It is great to see research being done on the influence of radical prostatectomy on the quality of life of men who suffer from it. It is an important topic, especially considering the high percentage of men who undergo this surgery, including young men with an active life. However, for the article to be published, I recommend that the authors review some aspects to ensure the study is comprehensive and accurate.

I noticed on line 25 you mentioned that it is a longitudinal, cross-sectional study. However, I believe you may have made a mistake and meant to say it is a longitudinal observational study.

Additionally, I noticed that citation 9 on line 63 is not entered according to the journal's author guidelines. The same applies to line xx with quote 12. It would be a good idea to revise it accordingly. 

Furthermore, I recommend indicating on lines 105-121 that the questionnaires have been previously validated in Spanish. This would ensure the accuracy and reliability of the study.

On line 119, it is essential to define the acronym QOL, which refers to the quality of life. This will help readers follow the argument without any difficulty. Perhaps you could describe it on line 44, for example: "Quality of life (QOL) comprises several...". Something similar happens in line 127 with HRQoL.

In the section on data collection, under materials and methods, it would be helpful to know at what point the questionnaire was administered. It will provide valuable context to the study and its findings. Specifically, it would be useful to know whether the questionnaire was given to the participants on admission, before the operation, sometime before the surgery, or at another point in the process.

Regarding the sentence between lines 252 and 254, it would be much appreciated if you could provide some citations that support the claim that longitudinal studies support one result and cross-sectional studies support another. This would give more weight to the argument and further strengthen the validity of the research.

Lastly, in lines 263-266, it would be beneficial if you could include a citation to support the ideas presented. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore physiotherapy as a technique for improving sex life. This could include Kegel exercises, as well as other non-pharmacological treatments.

I am firmly convinced that, once these aspects have been addressed, the article will be significantly improved and can be published.

Author Response

Please find attached the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Quality of life after radical prostatectomy: A cross-sectional study

Ana Anguas-Gracia et al. in the article entitled Quality of life after radical prostatectomy: A cross-sectional study, they comprehensively analyze the quality of life of patients with advanced prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy surgery. Undoubtedly, the most important thing for a cancer patient is to get rid of the disease. However, it should be remembered that the applied treatment may significantly affect the quality of life of patients, despite obtaining the status of a convalescent. Thus, the analysis undertaken by the authors is very important.

 

The authors should be commended for a well-researched study.

Below are some comments that should be taken into account by the authors before the manuscript goes to the next editing stage.

Comments:

  - the authors should be consistent in defining the nature of the study - longitudinal and cross-sectional. Because in different parts of the article they use either longitudinal or cross-sectional. And as you know, these are two different types of research design - although in some cases (like this one) they can occur together - it should be unified.

  - what does the sentence in line 175 mean: We observed that role functioning significantly improved in patients who had received pre-surgical treatment it. - in the results section, there is no indication of the number of patients who received treatment before surgery

  - Line 168 - sentence: When comparing this change in the dimensions with the independent variables, the results show statistically significant differences in age, previous treatment, type of surgery performed, preservation or not of bundles and smoking habits. - there is no information anywhere on how many patients had open surgery and how many laparoscopically. Also, there is no data on the number of patients who underwent nerve-sparing and who did not - these data should be supplemented in table 1.

  - citation numbers should be indicated at the end of each sentence - (e.g. verses 63,65, 236)

  - the word preoperatory (line 259) - replace it with preoperative. Similarly bandelets (line 296) - on bundles.

  - The Conclusions section should be more comprehensive - is too descriptive.

Details in section: Comments for Authors

Author Response

please find attached the file.

thanks. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments.