Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28337661›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2017

The Value of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

Yara L Basta, Sifra Bolle, Paul Fockens, Kristien M A J Tytgat

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Beyond the patient: how providers perceive and experience non-medical barriers in gastrointestinal cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Native Knee Septic Arthritis WithArthroplasty today · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yara L BastaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.l.basta@amc.nl.
Sifra BolleFaculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul FockensDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kristien M A J TytgatDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.m.tytgat@amc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is rising and most patients with GI malignancies are discussed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). We performed a systematic review to assess whether MDTs for patients with GI malignancies can correctly change diagnosis, tumor stage and subsequent treatment plan, and whether the treatment plan was implemented.

methodsWe performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a search of the PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases, and included studies relating to adults with a GI malignancy discussed by an MDT prior to the start of treatment which described a change of initial diagnosis, stage or treatment plan. Two researchers independently evaluated all retrieved titles and abstracts from the abovementioned databases.

resultsOverall, 16 studies were included; the study quality was rated as fair. Four studies reported that MDTs changed the diagnoses formulated by individual physicians in 18.4-26.9% of evaluated cases; two studies reported that MDTs formulated an accurate diagnosis in 89 and 93.5% of evaluated cases, respectively; nine studies described that the treatment plan was altered in 23.0-41.7% of evaluated cases; and four studies found that MDT decisions were implemented in 90-100% of evaluated cases. The reasons for altering a treatment plan included the patient's wishes, and comorbidities.

conclusionsMDT meetings for patients with a GI malignancy are responsible for changes in diagnoses and management in a significant number of patients. Treatment plans formulated by MDTs are implemented in 90-100% of discussed patients. All patients with a GI malignancy should be discussed by an MDT.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesPatient Care TeamGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationNeoplasm StagingPatient Care Planning

Identifiers

PMID28337661
PMCPMC5539280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.