ArticleBMJ open2016
What is the role of a specialist regional mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting? A service evaluation of one tertiary referral centre in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- A Diagnostic Approach to Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Article
- Improving mesothelioma follow-up care in the UK: a qualitative study to build a multidisciplinary pyramid of care approach.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Review
- Surgical Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: 20 Years' Experience at a High-Volume Referral Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- A review of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a large North East UK pleural centre.Pleura and peritoneum · 2020Article
- Managing malignant pleural mesothelioma: experience and perceptions of health care professionals caring for people with mesothelioma.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
- Pleuroscopy or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for exudative pleural effusion: a comparative overview.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- Exploring the characteristics of patients with mesothelioma who chose active symptom control over chemotherapy as first-line treatment: a prospective, observational, single centre study.BMC palliative care · 2017Observational
- Malignant pleural mesothelioma: an update on investigation, diagnosis and treatment.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary team meetings are standard care for cancer in the UK and Europe. Professional bodies recommend that mesothelioma cases should be discussed at specialist multidisciplinary team meetings. However, no evidence exists exploring the role of the specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting.
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical activity of 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting and to determine how often a definitive diagnosis was made, whether the core requirements of the meeting were met and whether there was any associated benefit or detriment. DESIGN AND
settingA service evaluation using routinely collected data from 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting in a tertiary referral hospital in the South-West of England.
participantsAll cases discussed between 1/1/2014 and 31/12/2015. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was whether a definitive diagnosis was made. Secondary outcomes included whether treatment advice was offered, information on clinical trials provided or further investigations suggested. Additional benefits of the multidisciplinary team meeting and time taken from referral to outcome were also collected.
resultsA definitive diagnosis was reached in 171 of 210 cases discussed (81%). Mesothelioma was diagnosed in 153/210 (73%). Treatment advice was provided for 127 of 171 diagnostic cases (74%) and further investigations suggested for all 35 non-diagnostic cases. 86/210 cases (41%) were invited to participate in a trial, of whom 43/86 (50%) subsequently enrolled. Additional benefits included the avoidance of postmortem examination if the coroner was satisfied with the multidisciplinary team decision. The overall process from referral to outcome dispatch was <2 weeks in 75% of cases.
conclusionsThis specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting was effective at making diagnoses and providing recommendations for further investigations or treatment. The core requirements of a specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting were met. The process was timely, with most outcomes returned within 2 weeks of referral.
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.