ReviewFrontiers in psychology2019
An Integrated Literature Review of Time-on-Task Effects With a Pragmatic Framework for Understanding and Improving Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Oncology Team Meetings.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disruptions and Comprehensiveness of Patient Information in Multidisciplinary Virtual Tumor Boards: An Observational Study in Thoracic Cancer Care.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Assessing the performance of three large language models in thyroid cancer tumour board decision-making.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Digital decision support for structural improvement of melanoma tumor boards: using standard cases to optimize workflow.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Validation and implementation of a mobile app decision support system for prostate cancer to improve quality of tumor boards.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Facilitators and barriers to conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological multidisciplinary team meeting.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Analysis of communication styles underpinning clinical decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: impact of logistical challenges on communication and decision-making.BJS open · 2022Observational
- Combination Therapies with PRRT.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Advanced cancer and COVID-19 comorbidity: medical oncology-palliative medicine ethics meetings in a comprehensive cancer centre.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2021Article
- Facilitating High Quality Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study of Australian Chairpersons' Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Team Meetings.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making.Cancer medicine · 2020Observational
- Looking through the eyes of the multidisciplinary team: the design and clinical evaluation of a decision support system for lung cancer care.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
- A measure of case complexity for streamlining workflow in multidisciplinary tumor boards: Mixed methods development and early validation of the MeDiC tool.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Article
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
Multidisciplinary oncology team meetings (MDMs) or tumor boards, like other MDMs in healthcare, facilitate the incorporation of diverse clinical expertise into treatment planning for patients. Decision-making (DM) in relation to treatment planning in MDMs is carried out repeatedly until all patients put forward for discussion have been reviewed. Despite continuing financial pressure and staff shortages, the workload of cancer MDMs, and therefore meeting duration continue to increase (up to 5 h) with patients often receiving less than 2 min of team input. This begs the question as to whether the current set-up is conducive to achieve optimal DM, which these multi-specialty teams were set out to achieve in the first place. Much of what it is known, however, about the effects of prolonged cognitive activity comes from various subfields of science, leaving a gap in applied knowledge relating to complex healthcare environments. The objective of this review was thus to synthesize theory, evidence and clinical practice in order to bring the current understanding of prolonged, repeated DM into the context of cancer MDMs. We explore
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.