High Neuroticism Is Related to More Overall Functional Problems and Lower Function Scores in Men Who Had Surgery for Non-Relapsing Prostate Cancer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is interesting, well written and in some way quite new. Data are quite hold (study period 2008-2009).

Here some comments:

- The session "patients" in methods, is full of results: 688, 89, etc.. they are all results. They should not be inserted in the methods. Please move them to the results session.

- All patients undergone RP. (open? VLP? Robotic?) all same approach? the type of surgery might influence results and patients' perception

- It's not clear if the questionnaires have been administered by a psychologist or by a urologist. Similar, it seems that patients did not undergo a psychological evaluation before and after the treatment. This should be at least declared in the limitation session.

- Limitations of the study should be implemented.

Author Response

Referee #1

Review Report Form

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

Response:

We read these ratings like most of the manuscript can be improved, but especially the Methods section. We have tried to do so in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting, well written and in some way quite new. Data are quite old (study period 2008-2009).

Here some comments:

- The session "patients" in methods, is full of results: 688, 89, etc.. they are all results. They should not be inserted in the methods. Please move them to the results session.

Response: Done as suggested.

- All patients undergone RP. (open? VLP? Robotic?) all same approach? the type of surgery might influence results and patients' perception

Response: We agree with the reviewer concerning the relevance of this issue. However, these data were not collected in our study.

- It's not clear if the questionnaires have been administered by a psychologist or by a urologist. Similar, it seems that patients did not undergo a psychological evaluation before and after the treatment. This should be at least declared in the limitation session.                   

Response: The questionnaire was completed at the hospital by the respondents prior to surgery. The follow-up questionnaires were mailed to the patients’ home address. This information has been added to the revised manuscript. The patients had no psychological evaluations, and this fact has been added to the limitation section.

- Limitations of the study should be implemented.

Response: Done as suggested.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper Dahl and Fossa study the influence of high neuroticism on overall problems and lower function scores in men who had surgery for non-relapsing prostate cancer.

General comment:

The study is well design and the paper is well written. The weaknesses of the study are fairly presented.

Specific points:

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is thought to negatively impact the Sexual domain of life of the patients; how do authors explain that after RP, sexual domain problems become statistically insignificant between the two groups? Does the RP ameliorate the effects of Sexual domain related neuroticism? The same question for the Urinary domain. Is it expected that RP would ameliorate those? This is not quite clear and the authors could comment on this to clear it out.

Title: ''… overall problems…''; the authors could specify what kind of problems are those (health, lifestyle etc.).

''3. Statistics'' should be part of a ''2. Materials and Methods''

Table 3 is not shown in whole.

Author Response

Referee #2

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: We read these ratings like the reviewer is satisfied with these points.

In this paper Dahl and Fossa study the influence of high neuroticism on overall problems and lower function scores in men who had surgery for non-relapsing prostate cancer.

General comment:

The study is well design and the paper is well written. The weaknesses of the study are fairly presented.

Specific points:

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is thought to negatively impact the Sexual domain of life of the patients; how do authors explain that after RP, sexual domain problems become statistically insignificant between the two groups? Does the RP ameliorate the effects of Sexual domain related neuroticism? The same question for the Urinary domain. Is it expected that RP would ameliorate those? This is not quite clear and the authors could comment on this to clear it out.

Response: The reviewer’s point is well taken. We have added explanations for these differences in the revised manuscript.

Title: ''… overall problems…''; the authors could specify what kind of problems are those (health, lifestyle etc.).

Response: Done as suggested.

''3. Statistics'' should be part of a ''2. Materials and Methods''

Response: The Statistics section has been placed accordingly.

Table 3 is not shown in whole.

Response: Table 3. should be fully viable in the revised manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors edited the manuscript according to the advice given