Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of life of early stage colorectal cancer patients in Morocco  
 
Version: 1 Date: 25 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Amy Downing  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have addrressed most of the points I made in the previous review. However, there 
are still a few minor points which need to be addressed.  
 
 
 
1. On page 14 the authors have inserted some text explaning that QoL could have decreased 
from initial measurement and then come back up to the initial score by 12 months. If data 
were collected every 12 weeks then why is it not possible to look at this? The statement 
as it is looks odd and would raise questions. As I stated prev iously, it would be 
interesting to see how the scores changed over time rather than simply initial vs 12 
months.  
 
 
2. The authors have not addressed my point that when making comparisons between groups 
in the results section it is not always clear what the  figures relate to. Where there are 
figues x vs. y in the main sentence or in brackets it needs to be much clearer what x and y 
are referring to. Yes, these are in the table but the text must be clearer for the readers.  
 
 
3. Some of the tables still use the  term 'baseline' rather than 'initial'.  
 
 
4. There are still some language and grammatical issues to be addresses, and several points 
where captial letters appear part way through a sentence.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessa ry controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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 future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content o f 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 t hat I have no competing interests.  
 
I agre e 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 accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website alo ng with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n 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 repo rt 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  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of life of early stage colorectal cancer patients in Morocco  
 
Version: 1 Date: 25 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Amy Downing  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have addrressed most of the points I made in the previous review. However, there 
are still a few minor points which need to be addressed.  
 
 
 
1. On page 14 the authors have inserted some text explaning that QoL could have decreased 
from initial measurement and then come back up to the initial score by 12 months. If data 
were collected every 12 weeks then why is it not possible to look at this? The statement 
as it is looks odd and would raise questions. As I stated prev iously, it would be 
interesting to see how the scores changed over time rather than simply initial vs 12 
months.  
 
 
2. The authors have not addressed my point that when making comparisons between groups 
in the results section it is not always clear what the  figures relate to. Where there are 
figues x vs. y in the main sentence or in brackets it needs to be much clearer what x and y 
are referring to. Yes, these are in the table but the text must be clearer for the readers.  
 
 
3. Some of the tables still use the  term 'baseline' rather than 'initial'.  
 
 
4. There are still some language and grammatical issues to be addresses, and several points 
where captial letters appear part way through a sentence.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessa ry controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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 future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content o f 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 t hat I have no competing interests.  
 
I agre e 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 accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website alo ng with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n 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 repo rt 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  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of life of early stage colorectal cancer patients in Morocco  
 
Version: 1 Date: 25 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Amy Downing  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have addrressed most of the points I made in the previous review. However, there 
are still a few minor points which need to be addressed.  
 
 
 
1. On page 14 the authors have inserted some text explaning that QoL could have decreased 
from initial measurement and then come back up to the initial score by 12 months. If data 
were collected every 12 weeks then why is it not possible to look at this? The statement 
as it is looks odd and would raise questions. As I stated prev iously, it would be 
interesting to see how the scores changed over time rather than simply initial vs 12 
months.  
 
 
2. The authors have not addressed my point that when making comparisons between groups 
in the results section it is not always clear what the  figures relate to. Where there are 
figues x vs. y in the main sentence or in brackets it needs to be much clearer what x and y 
are referring to. Yes, these are in the table but the text must be clearer for the readers.  
 
 
3. Some of the tables still use the  term 'baseline' rather than 'initial'.  
 
 
4. There are still some language and grammatical issues to be addresses, and several points 
where captial letters appear part way through a sentence.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessa ry controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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 future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content o f 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 t hat I have no competing interests.  
 
I agre e 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 accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website alo ng with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n 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 repo rt 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  
assistant