Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32953540›Full record

ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2020

Implementation of lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: a review of evidence-practice gaps.

Nicole M Rankin, Elizabeth A Fradgley, David J Barnes

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Quality indicators and excellence requirements for a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Nicole M RankinFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Elizabeth A FradgleyUniversity of Newcastle Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research, Innovation and Translation, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
David J BarnesFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is considered best practice in lung cancer care. Health care services have made significant investments in MDC through the establishment of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. This investment is likely to be sustained in future. It is imperative that MDT meetings are efficient, effective, and sufficiently nimble to introduce new innovations to enable best practice. In this article, we consider the 'evidence-practice gaps' in the implementation of lung cancer MDC. These gaps were derived from the recurrent limitations outlined in existing studies and reviews. We address the contributions that implementation science and quality improvement can make to bridge these gaps by increasing translation and improving the uptake of innovations by teams.

Indexed as

Implementation sciencelung cancermultidisciplinary care (MDC)quality outcomes

Identifiers

PMID32953540
PMCPMC7481625

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.