Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32476281›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2020

A measure of case complexity for streamlining workflow in multidisciplinary tumor boards: Mixed methods development and early validation of the MeDiC tool.

Tayana Soukup, Abigail Morbi, Benjamin W Lamb, Tasha A K Gandamihardja, Katy Hogben, Katia Noyes, Ted A Skolarus, Ara Darzi, Nick Sevdalis, James S A Green

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Tayana SoukupCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0203-7264
Abigail MorbiDepartment of Surgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Benjamin W LambDepartment of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Tasha A K GandamihardjaChelmsford Breast Unit, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK.
Katy HogbenDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London NHS Trust, London, UK.
Katia NoyesDepartment of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Ted A SkolarusDow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nick SevdalisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.
James S A GreenCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBBroomfield Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · USUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThere is increasing emphasis in cancer care globally for care to be reviewed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (ie, in tumor boards). Evidence and recommendations suggest that the complexity of each patient case needs to be considered as care is planned; however, no tool currently exists for cancer teams to do so. We report the development and early validation of such a tool.

methodsWe used a mixed-methods approach involving psychometric evaluation and expert review to develop the Measure of case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) between May 2014 and November 2016. The study ran in six phases and included ethnographic interviews, observations, surveys, feasibility and reliability testing, expert consensus, and multiple expert-team reviews.

resultsPhase-1: case complexity factors identified through literature review and expert interviews; Phase-2: 51 factors subjected to iterative review and content validation by nine cancer teams across four England Trusts with nine further items identified; Phase 3: 60 items subjected to expert review distilled to the most relevant; Phase 4: item weighing and further content validation through a national UK survey; Phases 5 and 6: excellent interassessor reliability between clinical and nonclinical observers, and adequate validity on 903 video case discussions achieved. A final set of 27 factors, measuring clinical and logistical complexities were integrated into MeDiC.

conclusionsMeDiC is an evidence-based and expert-driven tool that gauges the complexity of cancer cases. MeDiC may be used as a clinical quality assurance and screening tool for tumor board consideration through case selection and prioritization.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMalePsychometricsQuality Assurance, Health CareWorkflowcase complexitydecision makingmultidisciplinary team meetingsoptimizationstreamliningtumor boardsworkload

Identifiers

PMID32476281
PMCPMC7367630
OpenAlexW3029689340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.