Evidence mapPaperPMID 37507594Full record

ReviewJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review.

Karina Karolina De Santis, Stefanie Helmer, Benjamin Barnes, Klaus Kraywinkel, Maren Imhoff, Roxana Müller-Eberstein, Mathia Kirstein, Anna Quatmann, Julia Simke, Lisa Stiens and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karina Karolina De SantisDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany. desantis@leibniz-bips.de.
Stefanie HelmerFaculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Benjamin BarnesGerman Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany.
Klaus KraywinkelGerman Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany.
Maren ImhoffGerman Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany.
Roxana Müller-EbersteinGerman Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany.
Mathia KirsteinDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Anna QuatmannFaculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Julia SimkeFaculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Lisa StiensFaculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Lara ChristiansonDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Hajo ZeebDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS · DERobert Koch Institute · DEUniversity of Bremen · DE

Funding

Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany grant number: 5053837-2.1.2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic affected medical care for chronic diseases. This study aimed to systematically assess the pandemic impact on oncological care in Germany using a rapid review.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, study and preprint registries and study bibliographies were searched for studies published between 2020 and 2 November 2022. Inclusion was based on the PCC framework: population (cancer), concept (oncological care) and context (COVID-19 pandemic in Germany). Studies were selected after title/abstract and full-text screening by two authors. Extracted data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively. Risk of bias was assessed and summarized using descriptive statistics.

resultsOverall, 77 records (59 peer-reviewed studies and 18 reports) with administrative, cancer registry and survey data were included. Disruptions in oncological care were reported and varied according to pandemic-related factors (e.g., pandemic stage) and other (non-pandemic) factors (e.g., care details). During higher restriction periods fewer consultations and non-urgent surgeries, and delayed diagnosis and screening were consistently reported. Heterogeneous results were reported for treatment types other than surgery (e.g., psychosocial care) and aftercare, while ongoing care remained mostly unchanged. The risk of bias was on average moderate.

conclusionsDisruptions in oncological care were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Such disruptions probably depended on factors that were insufficiently controlled for in statistical analyses and evidence quality was on average only moderate. Research focus on patient outcomes (e.g., longer term consequences of disruptions) and pandemic management by healthcare systems is potentially relevant for future pandemics or health emergencies.

Indexed as

CancerCOVID-19GermanyNeoplasmsOncological careOncology service

Identifiers

PMID37507594
PMCPMC10590309
OpenAlexW4385332054

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.