Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of life and the prevalence of urinary incontinence after surgical treatment for  
gynecologic cancer: A questionnaire survey  
 
Version:  0 Date: 20 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Thais Siqueira  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The manuscript focusses an interesting issue about pelvic floor dysfunction in a specific 
population: women after gynecologic cancer surgery. However, there are some important 
concerns that must be accessed before the manuscript be considered for publicati on. 
 
*Abstract: the authors state they are going to establish the "causes" for the symptoms. Is it right? 
Is it possible in this study design? Please explain.  
 
Results section is not very clear for the reader. Please, change some phrases (for example line 
18) and some lines are too long. Please review.  
 
At line 20, the authors present results of mixed incontinence on post -surgery aspects. Do they 
have pre -surgery data to present? It would be interesting for the reader to compare.  
 
*Introduction: the author s did not include data about peritoneal cancer, but it was included at 
methodology section. Why peritoneal cancer was not mentioned?  
 
Please, review the following lines and try to improve the phrases: 8, 28, 29, 33 and 34.  
 
*Methods: the authors state the y accessed information about urinary incontinence on pre and 
post-surgery. How did they access this information? Were the patients asked years after the 
procedure? Please, point out for the reader how this data could be accessed.  
 
Please, include the desig n of the study.  
 
At line 51, please review.  
 
At line 12, when the authors talk about ICIQ -SF, please include the word "type" of urinary 
incontinence (and not just "severity").  
 
Statistical analyses: the authors mentioned comparison between ages (line 42). Was this an 
objective of the study?  
 
*Results: at line 14 the authors present the distance between the periods of post -surgery. Since it 
is a long distance between them, should not it be mentioned as a limitation factor?  
 
At line 20, the authors talk abou t "other disease". Please, clarify what do they mean using this 
term.  
 
At line 10, should not the authors have presented scores of IIQ -7 on the different types of urinary 
incontinence (not just in general, as it was presented)? And why just evaluate on post -surgery 
and not on pre -surgery too? Please explain.  
 
*Discussion: At number 1 (line 16 and 17), the authors present data of types of urinary 
incontinence, but they not include the period (post -surgery). Please review.  
 
The authors did not discuss specifically the result they present that "There was no significant 
difference  in age between those with or without UI either pre -or post -surgery" (results section, 
line 36). Please explain.  
  
At number 2 (line 18), the authors state that "the subjects in the present study all had stage 1 
disease, and the tumors were localized in al l cases". Should not this information be present on 
methods section? Please review.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your co mments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the fut ure? 
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of  the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons .org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal