Sentry Page Protection


Submission To Be Reviewed

Title:  Current status of Cancer Rehabilitation in the Middle East

Journal Section


Background: The aim of the current paper is to describe the status of cancer rehabilitation in the Middle East. The Middle East is a diverse region in terms of culture, religion, and politics. This diversity combined with a vague definition of the countries included in the region prevents a comprehensive review of the state of cancer rehabilitation.

Methods: Lack of data and publications in international peer review journals it is difficult to describe cancer rehabilitation in the Middle East and to draw conclusions. For these reasons, instead of comprehensive description this paper focuses on examples from different countries demonstrating different levels of cancer rehabilitation.

Results: Generally, with some rare exceptions such as Iran, rehabilitation services are not developed in Middle Eastern countries.  In cases where there are more developed services these services are not fully integrated into the cancer continuum of care.

Conclusion: Health care initiatives can't overcome regional and national barriers such as military conflict or poor economy. Notwithstanding global initiative it is important to assess what can be done locally with minimum resources.  First step can be introducing the concept of cancer rehabilitation through simple guidelines and instructions for self-care of the patients.  These guidelines can be communicated to patients and caregivers under the title of rehabilitation program by any member of the medical team. These guidelines can be the seed for more complex programs that need more resources.


Key words: 

Cancer; Rehabilitation; Middle East; Continuum of Care

Review Schedule

Editor's request 28-09-2018

Your Response 

Review Submitted 

Review Due 


1) Does this paper present new ideas or results that have not been previously published? 2) Is the research presented in the article new or build upon existing research? 3) Does the article point out differences from related research?
Does the article make a considerable contribution to the oncology field?
1) Does the title clearly express the content of the article? Is 2) Is the abstract sufficiently informative and provides a good perspective on the final message of the aricle?
1) Are the methods used clearly explained? 2) Are they a recognized approach? 3) Are the data and statistics used reliable?
1) Are they clearly presented? 2) Do they avoid misinterpretation? 3) Do they sufficiently avoid assumptions and speculations?
1) Do they reflect the latest research in the area? 2) Are they correctly indicated in article? 3) Are they correctly formatted according to the author guidelines?
1) Are the tables correctly name and numbered? 2) Are the data presented in the table correctly interpreted in the article?
1) Are the figures correctly named and numbered? 2) Do they properly illustrate what is discussed in the article? 3) Are they correctly interpreted in the article?
1) Is the article clearly written?
1) Does the article fit the guidelines for the section as outlined in the instructions to authors?
Please rate the article in priority for publication based on the interest to our readership and contribution to the oncology field. (5) Being of hieghest priority and (1) being the lowest.