ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2015
Implementing effective and sustainable multidisciplinary clinical thoracic oncology programs.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
- The Interdisciplinary Management of Lung Cancer in the European Community.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Virtual Clinical and Precision Medicine Tumor Boards-Cloud-Based Platform-Mediated Implementation of Multidisciplinary Reviews Among Oncology Centers in the COVID-19 Era: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- The Multidisciplinary Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Clinical liver disease · 2021Review
- Multidisciplinary care models for patients with lung cancer.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2020Review
- Looking through the eyes of the multidisciplinary team: the design and clinical evaluation of a decision support system for lung cancer care.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
- Implementation of lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: a review of evidence-practice gaps.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Review
- Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel.JCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Reasons for prolonged time for diagnostic workup for stage I-II lung cancer and estimated effect of applying an optimized pathway for diagnostic procedures.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Developing an Integrated Service Planning Tool: Lessons Learnt from Planning the WSLHD Thoracic Oncology Program.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three models of care are described, including two models of multidisciplinary care for thoracic malignancies. The pros and cons of each model are discussed, the evidence supporting each is reviewed, and the need for more (and better) research into care delivery models is highlighted. Key stakeholders in thoracic oncology care delivery outcomes are identified, and the need to consider stakeholder perspectives in designing, validating and implementing multidisciplinary programs as a vehicle for quality improvement in thoracic oncology is emphasized. The importance of reconciling stakeholder perspectives, and identify meaningful stakeholder-relevant benchmarks is also emphasized. Metrics for measuring program implementation and overall success are proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.