Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29403284›Full record

ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2018

Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature.

Tayana Soukup, Benjamin W Lamb, Sonal Arora, Ara Darzi, Nick Sevdalis, James Sa Green

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 149 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
54.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

149 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 300 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Tayana SoukupHealth Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Benjamin W LambDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sonal AroraDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Center for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College London.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Center for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College London.
Nick SevdalisHealth Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, London, UK.
James Sa GreenWhipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust.
King's College London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBNational Patient Safety Foundation · USPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs - including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don'ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.

Indexed as

cancer MDTcancer meetingMDMpatients with cancer

Identifiers

PMID29403284
PMCPMC5783021
OpenAlexW2783092519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.