COVID-19 pandemic impact on screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The healthcare level has been greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the outbreak. This study aimed to review the impact of COVID-19 on the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHOD: The current study was designed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. The keywords used to perform the search strategy were COVID-19 and prostate neoplasms. The four primary electronic databases comprising PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase were searched until 1 September 2022. After screening and selecting studies through the EndNote software, data were extracted from each included study by two independent authors. All studies were evaluated according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. RESULTS: As a result, 40 studies were included, categorised into two subjects. The majority of studies indicated a significant decrease in screening prostate-specific antibody tests during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-pandemic period, leading to delays in cancer diagnosis. The decrease in the number of diagnosed cases with low/intermediate stages to some extent was more than those with advanced stages. The PCa screening and diagnosis reduction ranged from nearly 0% to 78% and from 4.1% to 71.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that during the COVID-19 lockdown, delays in PCa screening tests and diagnoses led to the negative health effects on patients with PCa. Thus, it is highly recommended performing regular cancer screening to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021291656.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".