An Evaluation of the Vulnerable Physician Workforce in the USA During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.26.20044263: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The study has certain limitations. We do not have information on the specialty expertise of physicians, as some physicians may be more prone to encountering patients with COVID-19. However, as many individuals in the community may be asymptomatic carriers, physicians across specialties are at risk of acquiring the disease as a part of the patient contact during care delivery. Further, we are unable to identify the health status of physicians that may modify their risk or make some younger physicians vulnerable. Finally, physicians may be licensed in more than one state. National estimates, however, represent the number of unique physicians. In conclusion, older physicians represent a large proportion of the US physician workforce, particularly in states with the worst COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, their exclusion from patient care will be impractical. Optimizing care practices by limiting direct patient contact of physicians vulnerable to adverse outcomes from COVID-19, potentially by expanding their participation in telehealth may be a strategy to protect them.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.26.20044263: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    He was a recipient of a research grant, through Yale, from Medtronic and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to develop methods for post-market surveillance of medical devices; is a recipient of a research grant with Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson, through Yale, to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing; was a recipient of a research agreement, through Yale, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion; collaborates with the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; received payment from the Arnold & Porter Law Firm for work related to the Sanofi clopidogrel litigation and from the Ben C.
    Medtronic
    suggested: (Medtronic, SCR_003988)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, please follow this link.