SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.26.21259568: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
<table><tr><td style="min-width:100px;margin-right:1em; border-right:1px solid lightgray; border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Ethics</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">not detected.</td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;margin-right:1em; border-right:1px solid lightgray; border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Sex as a biological variable</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">not detected.</td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;margin-right:1em; border-right:1px solid lightgray; border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Randomization</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">not detected.</td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;margin-right:1em; border-right:1px solid lightgray; border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Blinding</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">not detected.</td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;margin-right:1em; border-right:1px solid lightgray; border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Power Analysis</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">not detected.</td></tr></table>Table 2: Resources
<table><tr><th style="min-width:100px;text-align:center; padding-top:4px;" colspan="2">Software and Algorithms</th></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;text=align:center">Sentences</td><td style="min-width:100px;text-align:center">Resources</td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Data Sources, Search Strategy, and Study Selection: First, a search strategy was developed for the PubMed database, see Table (1).</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>PubMed</div><div>suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)</div></div></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Then, the strategy was adapted for Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases.</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>Embase</div><div>suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)</div></div><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>Cochrane CENTRAL</div><div>suggested: (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, RRID:SCR_006576)</div></div><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>Google Scholar</div><div>suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)</div></div></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">To widen the search frame and get more results, the search strategy was developed to include both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords.</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>MeSH</div><div>suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)</div></div></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Afterward, the 1st author conducted an electronic database search and removed the duplicates by using the EndNote X9.2 program.</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>EndNote</div><div>suggested: (EndNote, RRID:SCR_014001)</div></div></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">For that, the frequency of use for each KPI at each implementation was plotted on Microsoft Excel and the sum was calculated.</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>Microsoft Excel</div><div>suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)</div></div></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Each Risk of Bias (RoB) was categorized into 3 categories according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews: high risk, low risk, and unclear risk [46].</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>Cochrane Handbook</div><div>suggested: None</div></div></td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Summary of RoB was prepared using RevMan 5 [47].</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray"><div style="margin-bottom:8px"><div>RevMan</div><div>suggested: (RevMan, RRID:SCR_003581)</div></div></td></tr></table>Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Moreover, researchers are encouraged to perform systematic reviews for each dimension, especially those dimensions that are already well investigated, as well as the investigation of dimensions that are still poorly investigated but essential for PE. 3.10 Strengths and weaknesses: We believe that this paper has several strengths. First, this systematic review includes all types of studies with BSC implementations, such as books, theses, conference papers, letters to the editor, etc. Second, this review includes all implementations despite the country, language, or HCO administrative type. This gives an advantage of being able to generalize the results on HCOs worldwide. Third, this review not only calculates the frequency of use of perspectives but also calculates the weights (importance) assigned to them. Fourth, it is the first review that has uniformed the KPIs in homogenous major dimensions and sub-dimensions despite the categorization differences among implementations, which yields more precise results. Finally, this study is the first to analyze the implication of BSC in HCOs during the pandemic. The resulted KPIs and dimensions at this review can be generalized or replicable to other HCOs and hospitals. However, an initial assessment needs to be done by top management to evaluate the importance of each according to the health organizations’ strategy. On the other hand, this systematic review has some limitations. First, unlike previous reviews, it excludes some HCOs su...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:
- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
<footer>
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
</footer>