ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2021
Medical and Nonmedical Information during Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 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
- Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Moral reasoning during vascular surgeons' case conferences: finding the balance of risk and benefit by exploring the clinical details.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026Article
- 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
- Improving Craniofacial Team Collaboration: A Multicenter Interview Study of Effective Team Meetings.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Investigating the efficiency of lung multi-disciplinary team meetings-A mixed methods study of eight lung multi-disciplinary teams.Cancer medicine · 2023Observational
- Guideline adherence and implementation of tumor board therapy recommendations for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Multidisciplinary Team Meeting in the Core of Nasopharyngeal Cancer Management Improved Quality of Care and Survival of Patients.Health services insights · 2023Article
- Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- The role of multidisciplinary team meetings in the management of spinal tumors.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings provide treatment recommendations based on available information and collective decision-making in teams with complementary professions, disciplines and skills. We aimed to map ancillary medical and nonmedical patient information during case presentations and case discussions in MDT meetings in cancer care.
methodsThrough a nonparticipant, observational approach, we mapped verbal information on medical, nonmedical and patient-related characteristics and classified these based on content. Data were collected from 336 case discussions in three MDTs for neuro-oncology, sarcoma and hepato-biliary cancer.
resultsInformation on physical status was presented in 48.2% of the case discussions, psychological status in 8.9% and comorbidity in 48.5% of the cases. Nonmedical factors, such as family relations, occupation, country of origin and abode were referred to in 3.6-7.7% of the cases, and patient preferences were reported in 4.2%.
conclusionsProvision of information on comorbidities in half of the cases and on patient characteristics and treatment preferences in <10% of case discussions suggest a need to define data elements and develop reporting standards to support robust MDT decision-making.
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.