ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multidisciplinary team approach to pelvic floor disorders: A systematic review.Biomedical journal · 2026Pooled it
- Do Local Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in the UK Alter Management Recommendations for Invasive Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence?International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Multiple large language models versus experienced physicians in diagnosing challenging cases with gastrointestinal symptoms.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Recommendations for the implementation and conduct of multidisciplinary team meetings for those providing endometriosis and adenomyosis care - a Delphi consensus of the European Endometriosis League (EEL).Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- An Evaluation of the Postvoid Residual Urine Volume in Acute Stroke Patients.Research and reports in urology · 2024Article
- What is the role of the multidisciplinary team meeting in primary prolapse surgery and are alternative formats acceptable?International urogynecology journal · 2023Observational
- Multidisciplinary approach between physicians and physiotherapists in urogynecology: how can we make it stronger?International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Evidence for the urogynaecology multidisciplinary team meeting: evaluation from a secondary care perspective.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe concept of multidisciplinary team (MDT) is well accepted in the current National Health Service (NHS) and is considered good practice for the management of chronic conditions. There has been a recent drive to have MDTs in managing women with incontinence and complex prolapse as a result of recommendations by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) etc. Currently, there are no data on the outcome of case discussion at urogynaecology MDTs. The aim of this study was to review the clinical impact of discussion of a select group of cases at an urogynaecology MDT and review the clinical literature to justify the MDT approach.
methodsMDT proformas of cases discussed from October 2012 to December 2013 were reviewed. Outcomes of the MDT were compared with recommendations at the initial consultation. This included change in management plan, type of surgery and surgeon as well as time delay due to MDT discussion.
resultsOne hundred six proformas were available for analysis. Age range was 23-89 (58) years. Average time from clinic visit to MDT discussion was 8.32 + 5.9 days. The MDT recommended a change in management plan in 31 cases (29.3%), with 11 cases (10.4%) resulting in alternative surgery and 1 case (0.9%) with an alternative surgeon. In 18.5% of cases, MDT discussion formulated the initial management plan.
conclusionsCase discussions at our MDT provide an effective clinical forum to formulate management plans for complex cases. The decision-making process is made robust, without significant impact on waiting time. Investment in setting up MDTs has financial implications but provides patient benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25749717What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.