ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Impact of COVID-19 in gynaecological oncology care: a systematic rapid review.
Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The Hidden Cost of Delay: Post-Pandemic Evolution of Advanced Ovarian Cancer Profiles.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- COVID-19 pandemic impact on gynecologic cancer treatment pathways in a Finnish tertiary center.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgery for benign diseases in gynecology: A nationwide survey by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2023Article
- Effect of COVID-19 on Gynecologic Oncology Care: A Survey of Practicing Gynecologic Radiation Oncologists in the United States.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSynthesis of available evidence on clinical practice in gynaecological oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic is highly warranted, as women with cancer are at increased risk due to their systemic immunosuppressed state and changes in their care are inevitable. Rapid review of available data is a quick way of providing useful information and insight into the way medical practice has been affected by the COVID pandemic.
methodsWe conducted a systematic rapid review, based on a literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We considered all studies on gynaecological oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic using relevant keywords and MeSH terms. Selection criteria were English language, studies with more than five cases and publication in peer-review journal.
resultsNine retrospective studies, one systematic review and five questionnaire surveys were included. Quality of the studies has been assessed. Development of higher quality evidence is warranted. Mortality of COVID-19 infection is higher in patients with gynaecological cancer than in non-cancer patients. Reported delays in diagnosis and management of cancer and changes in treatments, may affect the natural history of cancer and increase patients' anxiety and fear of disease progression while causing concerns to healthcare professionals affecting their clinical practice. The number of new diagnoses has declined. Prioritization is important, face-to-face interactions should be limited, and appropriate protective measures are essential. Cancer surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy should continue as high priority practices.
conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical practice significantly. Adaptations in clinical practice may improve mortality and complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.