ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
A systematic scoping review of multidisciplinary cancer team and decision-making in the management of men with advanced prostate cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing Lung Cancer Care in Bulgaria: A Successful Implementation of Value-Based Healthcarе.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Multilevel factors associated with inequities in multidisciplinary cancer consultation.Health services research · 2022Article
- Addressing Challenges and Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer with Multidisciplinary Teams.Targeted oncology · 2022Review
- Modern paradigms for prostate cancer detection and management.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Review
- Review
- Advanced prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- From quality management to quality improvement-structures, processes and outcomes.World journal of urology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe early diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent access to the treatment options helps to achieve optimal cancer outcomes. As the treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer continues to evolve, patients need to access a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting to receive best-practice care.
methodsIn this paper a MEDLINE review was performed to assess clinical decision making in the context of MDT discussions for patients with advanced prostate cancer.
resultsFrom 441 returned articles and abstracts, 50 articles were assessed for eligibility and 16 articles included for analysis. Sixteen articles were identified, 9 of the 16 articles used quantitative methodology including three retrospective analysis of clinical registry data, patient medical records and/or MDT meeting notes and three cross-sectional surveys. Other study designs included one observation study and one study using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and one mini-review. There were also four editorials included in the review and two consensus statements.
conclusionThis paper highlights the important role the inter-disciplinary MDT has on shared decision making for men with advanced prostate cancer. The application of MDT care is a rapidly growing trend in uro-oncology and an efficient MDT service requires further research to assess its efficiency so that it may expand through all aspect of uro-oncology.
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.