Cancer Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Patient’s and Caregiver’s Experiences

  1. Symran Dhada
  2. Derek Stewart
  3. Ejaz Cheema
  4. Muhammad Abdul Hadi
  5. Vibhu Paudyal

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.2147/cmar.s318115
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253949: (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
    CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar; and Wellcome Open Research and Authorea (for unpublished studies ongoing peer reviews) databases were searched systematically using medical subject headings (MeSH) and free-text keywords including ‘cancer’, ‘oncology, and ‘Coronavirus’, ‘COVID-19’ and related terms (electronic supplementary material 1) from December 2019 till December 2020.
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    MeSH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)

    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:
    Strengths and limitations: Although we adopted rigorous and systematic approach to conducting the review, our study has some limitations. As the coronavirus pandemic is such a recent and rapidly advancing area of research, the date of coverage was very limited i.e.one year. As this is an international systematic review, data has been synthesised from a range of countries. However, healthcare systems can vary considerably and so caution should be exercised when considering the generalisability of the findings.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253949v1 on medRxiv