Observational studyCancer medicine2020
A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making.
Observational study in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Disruptions and Comprehensiveness of Patient Information in Multidisciplinary Virtual Tumor Boards: An Observational Study in Thoracic Cancer Care.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- User perceptions of machine learning models as decision support for colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team conferences (AID-SIM-2): a qualitative simulation study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Validation of the Measure of Case-Discussion Complexity and the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making for Streamlining Workflow and Evaluating Decision-Making in US Tumor Boards.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- The Perception and Development of Virtual Multidisciplinary Teams in Oncology in the Post-COVID-19 Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in the Nordic countries: results from a Nordic survey.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Towards a conceptualisation of collaborative decision-making within interprofessional collaborative practice: a concept analysis using scoping review methodology.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- 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
- Diffusion dynamics of technological innovations in health: the case of an innovative medical imaging technology in France.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Incentive Configuration Pathways for Standardization of Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams in China: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Simulation-Based Evaluation of a Large Language Model-Enabled Clinical Decision Support Platform in Oncology.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Team Intervention: Catalysts for Changing Prognosis in Advanced Breast Cancer.Journal of breast cancer · 2025Article
- Lengthy Shifts and Decision Fatigue in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Status of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital settings: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Multi-disciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in Norway and Denmark: results from national surveys and observations with MDT-MODe.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- [Current Situation and Future Direction of Multidisciplinary Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case-complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions.
resultsThe full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive-catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time-workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety.
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.