ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2017
The multidisciplinary team meeting in the UK from the patients' perspective: comments and observations from cholangiocarcinoma patients and their families.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of current guidelines and consensus on the management of patients with cholangiocarcinoma: 2022 update.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2022Review
- The Proportion of Occupationally Related Cholangiocarcinoma: A Tertiary Hospital Study in Northeastern Thailand.Cancers · 2022Article
- Article
- Deconstructing the Meaning of Multidisciplinary Cancer Care: A mixed-method study of patients and providers.Oncology issues · 2022Article
- Medical and Nonmedical Information during Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Navigating Diagnostic and Treatment Decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Expert Commentary on the Multidisciplinary Team Approach.The oncologist · 2021Review
- Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers' Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting has become the hallmark for cancer care in the UK. While standardizing care through adherence to guidelines, the MDT process can make the decision-making process somewhat remote from the patient perspective. The Cholangiocarcinoma Charity (AMMF) is the UK's only cholangiocarcinoma charity and is at the forefront of patient empowerment for those with this condition and for their families. It provides much needed support not only via personal contact but also through its website and on the social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter.
methodsAMMF conducted a survey of patient attitudes to and experience of the MDT process through a simple questionnaire posted on Facebook in 2014. We report the results of the responses received, which we believe are worthy of further thought.
findingsIn the main, while treatment decisions are not queried, there is distress at the lack of involvement, the lack of representation, the lack of communication and at not knowing who to approach for answers to questions.
conclusionThis snapshot, although small, provides some insight to clinicians not to forget the constituency they serve, as communication is all important.
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.