ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2020
Clinical decision trees support systematic evaluation of multidisciplinary team recommendations.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intelligent MDT treatment decision making for stage III NSCLC using dual level embedding and three level explanation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Implementing shared decision-making interventions in breast cancer clinical practice: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022Observational
- Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.Patient preference and adherence · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEUSOMA's recommendation that "each patient has to be fully informed about each step in the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway" could be supported by guideline-based clinical decision trees (CDTs). The Dutch breast cancer guideline has been modeled into CDTs ( www.oncoguide.nl ). Prerequisites for adequate CDT usage are availability of necessary patient data at the time of decision-making and to consider all possible treatment alternatives provided in the CDT.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study evaluated 394 randomly selected female patients with non-metastatic breast cancer between 2012 and 2015. Four pivotal CDTs were selected. Two researchers analyzed patient records to determine to which degree patient data required per CDT were available at the time of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and how often multiple alternatives were actually reported.
resultsThe four selected CDTs were indication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, preoperative and adjuvant systemic treatment, and immediate breast reconstruction. For 70%, 13%, 97% and 13% of patients, respectively, all necessary data were available. The two most frequent underreported data-items were "clinical M-stage" (87%) and "assessable mammography" (28%). Treatment alternatives were reported by MDTs in 32% of patients regarding primary treatment and in 28% regarding breast reconstruction.
conclusionBoth the availability of data in patient records essential for guideline-based recommendations and the reporting of possible treatment alternatives of the investigated CDTs were low. To meet EUSOMA's requirements, information that is supposed to be implicitly known must be explicated by MDTs. Moreover, MDTs have to adhere to clear definitions of data-items in their reporting.
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.