Teleoncology: A Solution for Everyone? A Single-Center Experience with Telemedicine during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

14 describe the patients you wanted to include, not how many were actually reached because it is a result

15 validated questionnaire? Any validated scores? Is it a qualitative or thematic approach?

17 put the female percentage .. I suggest median aged type 44.3 [IQR]

27-28 I don't understand the last sentence well. The first conclusion is fine, but any forward-looking statements? any suggestions that the interviews gave to almost 500 patients? Some impact on the literature is needed, because if you stop to define the role of the tele-approach, it seems reductive to me also for your work and commitment ...

70-72 I suggest a concept like the follow: “Telehealth appeared essential for patients with severe disabilities in COVID-19 pandemic context, and it seemed that telemedicine should not only allow the clinician to enter the patient’s house but, on the contrary, allow the individual to get out of lockdown.” Ref: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1108/JET-11-2020-0047

84 people with cancer?

89 Who carried out the investigation? an oncologist? An author?

102 Would I put the questionnaire in the manuscript not being so voluminous? Since it is not validated, have you conducted any kind of analysis or evaluation in this regard? Who drafted it? A group of people? An author?

It is interesting because a transversal from a year ago, but which refers to 2 years ago. Well, 2 years ago were suffering from COVID-19? Too bad not to have analyzed it

141-150 describe the multivariate analysis in the statistical analysis paragraph. It seems that you then conducted the analysis only from an anamnestic point of view, why did you not deepen the questionnaire with the same approach?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

 

Thanks for your comments. Fint attached our response, in italics you will find text from the manuscript added or changed. 

 

Now, the manuscript have been improved, anb hopefully it fits to the journal. 

 

Paula Ribera

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took up quite an interesting topic. Abstract that is well-designed The authors provide the purpose of the work, methodology, and results. Introduction. At this point, I miss information about the gap in the work, what is innovative at work. In line 77 authors write: "...pandemic in our centre, Hospital Parc Taulí" - there is no information at this point where the hospital is located in which country. In line 82, I recommend identifying more patients with cancer. How long do they get sick? How old are they? What is their level of knowledge of telemedicine? How were the respondents selected for the research, in terms of incidence years, gender, and age? In line 84 authors write that: "Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older..." In line 97 authors write: "novel patient satisfaction survey" this sentence is not clear. I recommend that you justify what is innovative in the survey and how it differs from other studies. There is no description of what the x and y axes mean. I believe that this sentence should be very carefully elaborated. It specifies how many percent of respondents fell into each range because it is critical to their satisfaction with telemedicine or lack thereof.  The sentence in line 87 is not clear :"...some months later in order to ensure they had more than one telemedicine visit". In line 89 authors use term candidates...its again not clear. I think there should be word respondents. The sentence that the authors used in the conclusion should be rewritten because using the statement "Similar satisfaction rates (75–92%) (32-50) have been published before, so we reinforce the idea that the use of telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic had a good acceptance worldwide." emphasizes that their work does not bring anything new, and I think the intention of this sentence was different. I connected the sentences to refine them because it sounded very chaotic. The authors have thoroughly reviewed the literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

 

Thanks for your comments. Fint attached our response, in italics you will find text from the manuscript added or changed. 

 

Now, the manuscript have been improved, anb hopefully it fits to the journal. 

 

Paula Ribera

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Ribera et al., present an interesting, well-structured manuscript with innovative and high-impact data. The manuscript needs some reconsideration before publication:

-The authors should reconsider the title of the manuscript. At the present time, the title of the manuscript is erratic and does not mention the nature of the manuscript and the reported results.

-The summary should be improved, focusing on the importance of this study and adding translational conclusions in the field of oncology.

-The introduction to the state of the art is adequate. However, the authors referenced 50 manuscripts. This point should be improved, I think there are too many for such a limited introduction.

-The authors must include a paragraph in the introduction justifying the study in the specific context.

-The authors must justify the temporality of the study in the material and methods section.

-The sample size must be justified, and add the statistical power.

-Please, the authors should improve section 2.4, the authors should include a justification of the statistical methods.

-The results are presented in a very incomplete way. The authors must be more specific and show all the data in the text of the manuscript.

-The figure legends and tables are very poor. Authors should explain the content of figures and tables better.

-The figures must improve the quality and put symbols of meaning in an appropriate way.

The discussion is poor. The authors should improve it. The authors do not compare the results with the infinite number of existing studies. The authors must make the discussion so that the conclusions support the results.

-The authors should extensively improve the use of English grammar. In the current version there are numerous grammatical errors.

-The authors must include the Informed Consent Statement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

 

Thanks for your comments. Fint attached our response, in italics you will find text from the manuscript added or changed. 

 

Now, the manuscript have been improved, anb hopefully it fits to the journal. 

 

Paula Ribera

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, the manuscript has improved although there remains a concern related to the validation of the questionnaire used. I recommend inserting abbreviations in the caption of the figures

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been refined according to the guidelines. All deficiencies have been carefully corrected, for which I am very grateful. The work looks very good in its present form. Congratulations to the authors. This is a very interesting manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscrip is perfect now.