ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2020
Optimizing lung cancer MDT data for maximum clinical impact-a scoping literature review.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary Team Care for Early-Stage Lung Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and Emerging Economies: Current Position and Call for Action.Thoracic cancer · 2026Review
- [Current Status of Multidisciplinary Team Consultation for Lung Cancer and Prospects under the Empowerment of Medical Large Models].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- ViMDT: a clinical data visual analysis tool for multi-disciplinary treatment of lung cancer.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- ESR Bridges: renal cell carcinoma-a multidisciplinary view.European radiology · 2025Article
- The initiation of the second-step intradisciplinary tumor board discussion and its impact on treatment decision. Retrospective data analysis of 12 years' experience in a tertiary oncology center.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Digital decision support for structural improvement of melanoma tumor boards: using standard cases to optimize workflow.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Developing a Questionnaire Evaluating Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors on Audit & Feedback among General Practitioners: A Mixed Methods Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Lung Cancer Screening: Implementation Challenges and Health Equity Considerations For the Western Pacific Region.JCO global oncology · 2023Review
- The Effect of MDT Collaborative Nursing Combined with Hierarchical Nursing Management Model on the Quality of Life and Comfort of Patients with Gallbladder Stones Combined with Acute Cholecystitis after Surgery.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer.Pulmonary therapy · 2021Review
- Navigating patient journey in early diagnosis of lung cancer in India.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest SocietyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multidisciplinary care in is widely recommended as best practice for lung cancer in many countries and jurisdictions. A number of studies suggest multidisciplinary care benefits patient outcomes, with analyses based on a range of data sources including national, state and local registries as well as multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT)-based data collections, often focused on different questions depending on data sources. MDT data collection and linkage are not standardized and not routine although data collection and feedback are specifically recommended by at least one statutory body. We performed a scoping review of current evidence for lung cancer MDT data collection and analysis, to identify discrete strategies through illustrative examples and to make recommendations for future approaches. Thirteen studies were identified that presented lung cancer MDT-related clinical outcomes, three included MDTs from multiple tumour streams while 10 studies focussed on lung cancer MDT meetings. Eleven studies measured the effect of MDT discussion on clinical outcomes of which eight were positive. Data sources included MDT records (3 studies), medical or hospital records (3 studies), institutional registries (5 studies) and state or national administrative datasets (6 studies), with some overlap. Examples of studies based on different data sources (local MDT, institutional registry, national registry) exemplified the different types of clinical research questions appropriate for each data source. While MDT data collection is not well-defined, the importance of clinical audit and data feedback and the potential for real-time analysis to improve outcomes deserve further investigation. Optimized datasets and linkage strategies are likely to maximize benefits for patients.
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.