ArticleRare tumors2019
Function, information, and contributions: An evaluation of national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers.
Article in Rare tumors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of the Virtual Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Model for Adult Patients on Haemodialysis: A Qualitative Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Quality Improvement of Single-Institution Craniofacial Center Multidisciplinary Meetings Using Standardized Meeting Guides.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Article
- The initiation of the second-step intradisciplinary tumor board discussion and its impact on treatment decision. Retrospective data analysis of 12 years' experience in a tertiary oncology center.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Understanding the effectiveness and quality of virtual cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): a systematic scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary care meeting practices across diverse international settings.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Improving Craniofacial Team Collaboration: A Multicenter Interview Study of Effective Team Meetings.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Observations of community-based multidisciplinary team meetings in health and social care for older people with long term conditions in England.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review.Cancer medicine · 2022Review
- SEOM-GECP-GETTHI Clinical Guidelines for the treatment of patients with thymic epithelial tumours (2021).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022Article
- A global approach to improving penile cancer care.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Lessons learned and keys to success: Provider experiences during the implementation of virtual oncology tumor boards in the era of COVID-19.Journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- The Added Value of a Multidisciplinary Clinic for Systemic Autoinflammatory Diseases.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- Benefits and drawbacks of videoconferencing for collaborating multidisciplinary teams in regional oncology networks: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- 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
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
National virtual multidisciplinary team meetings have been established in Swedish cancer care in response to centralized treatment of rare cancers. Though national meetings grant access to a large multidisciplinary network, we hypothesized that video-based meetings may challenge participants' contributions to the case discussions. We investigated participants' views and used observational tools to assess contributions from various health professionals during the multidisciplinary team meetings. Data on participants' views were collected using an electronic survey distributed to participants in six national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers. Data from observations were obtained from the multidisciplinary team meetings for penile cancer, anal cancer, and vulvar cancer using the standardized observational tools Meeting Observational Tool and Metric of Decision-Making that assess multidisciplinary team meeting functionality and participants' contributions to the case discussions. Participants overall rated the multidisciplinary team meetings favorably with high scores for development of individual competence and team competence. Lower scores applied to multidisciplinary team meeting technology, principles for communicating treatment recommendations, and guidelines for evaluating the meetings. Observational assessment resulted in high scores for case histories, leadership, and teamwork, whereas patient-centered care and involvement of care professionals received low scores. National virtual multidisciplinary team meetings are feasible and receive positive ratings by the participants. Case discussions cover medical perspectives well, whereas patient-centered aspects achieve less attention. Based on these findings, we discuss factors to consider to further improve treatment recommendations from national multidisciplinary team meetings.
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.