ArticleBMJ open quality2019
Improving the effectiveness of cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: analysis of a national survey of MDT members' opinions about streamlining patient discussions.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Association of multidisciplinary team management with survival in sinonasal malignancies: a real-world IPTW cohort study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of AI-based clinical decision support system for streamlining breast multidisciplinary team meetings.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Factors influencing discussion duration in breast cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: insights for streamlining care.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Article
- Streamlining urology cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: Implementation and outcomes.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Operationalising MDT streamlining through standards of care: a framework for specification and implementation.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Endometriosis MDC: role of the radiologist.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Understanding Unwarranted Variation in Care for Victorian Oesophagogastric Cancer Patients Using Linked Data: A Comparative Analysis Between 2012-2016 and 2017-2021.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Implementation of a virtual multi-disciplinary model of care for people affected by cancer: a qualitative evaluation.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- Empirical Study on the Operational Status and Key Influencing Factors of Outpatient Multidisciplinary (MDT) Service Model: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sichuan Province, China.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- The role of the multidisciplinary tumor board after endoscopic resection of malignant tumors: is it worth it?Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Article
- A randomised controlled trial of Pre-Operative Oncotype DX testing in early-stage breast cancer (PRE-DX study) - Study protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Investigating the efficiency of lung multi-disciplinary team meetings-A mixed methods study of eight lung multi-disciplinary teams.Cancer medicine · 2023Observational
- Facilitators and barriers to conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological multidisciplinary team meeting.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- The influence of multidisciplinary team meetings on treatment decisions in advanced bladder cancer.BJU international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer is diagnosed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the UK and worldwide, these teams meet regularly in MDT meetings (MDMs) to discuss individual patient treatment options. Rising cancer incidence and increasing case complexity have increased pressure on MDMs. Streamlining discussions has been suggested as a way to enhance efficiency and to ensure high-quality discussion of complex cases. Methods: Secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from a national survey of 1220 MDT members regarding their views about streamlining MDM discussions. Results: The majority of participants agreed that streamlining discussions may be beneficial although variable interpretations of 'streamlining' were apparent. Agreement levels varied significantly by tumour type and occupational group. The main reason for opposing streamlining were concerns about the possible impact on the quality and safety of patient care. Participants suggested a range of alternative approaches for improving efficiency in MDMs in addition to the use of treatment protocols and pre-MDT meetings. Conclusions: This work complements previous analyses in supporting the development of tumour-specific guidance for streamlining MDM discussions considering a range of approaches. The information provided about the variation in opinions between MDT for different tumour types will inform the development of these guidelines. The evidence for variation in opinions between those in different occupational groups and the reasons underlying these opinions will facilitate their implementation. The impact of any changes in MDM practices on the quality and safety of patient care requires evaluation.
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.