Evidence mapPaperPMID 33994014Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2021

Virtual visits among gynecologic oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic are accessible across the social vulnerability spectrum.

Lindsey A McAlarnen, Shirng-Wern Tsaih, Rana Aliani, Natasha M Simske, Elizabeth E Hopp

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Ovarian cancer recurrence detection may not require in-person physical examination: an MSK team ovary study.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lindsey A McAlarnenMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. Electronic address: lmcalarnen@mcw.edu.
Shirng-Wern TsaihMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Rana AlianiMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Natasha M SimskeMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Elizabeth E HoppMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Medical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001436 · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · 2025 to 2025
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has quickly transformed healthcare systems with expansion of telemedicine. The past year has highlighted risks to immunosuppressed cancer patients and shown the need for health equity among vulnerable groups. In this study, we describe the utilization of virtual visits by patients with gynecologic malignancies and assess their social vulnerability.

methodsVirtual visit data of 270 gynecology oncology patients at a single institution from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 was obtained by querying a cohort discovery tool. Through geocoding, the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was utilized to assign social vulnerability indices to each patient and the results were analyzed for trends and statistical significance.

resultsAfrican American patients were the most vulnerable with a median SVI of 0.71, Asian 0.60, Hispanic 0.41, and Caucasian 0.21. Eighty-seven percent of patients in this study were Caucasian, 8.9% African American, 3.3% Hispanic, and 1.1% Asian, which is comparable to the baseline institutional gynecologic cancer population. The mean census tract SVI variable when comparing patients to all census tracts in the United States was 0.31 (range 0.00 least vulnerable to 0.98 most vulnerable).

conclusionsVirtual visits were utilized by patients of all ages and gynecologic cancer types. African Americans were the most socially vulnerable patients of the cohort. Telemedicine is a useful platform for cancer care across the social vulnerability spectrum during the pandemic and beyond. To ensure continued access, further research and outreach efforts are needed.

Indexed as

AgedAsianBlack or African AmericanCohort StudiesCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19FemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGynecologyHealthcare DisparitiesHispanic or LatinoHumansMedical OncologyMiddle AgedPandemicsPatient Acceptance of Health CareCOVID-19 pandemicHealth disparitiesSocial vulnerability indexTelemedicineVirtual visit

Identifiers

PMID33994014
PMCPMC8111476
OpenAlexW3161362017

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.