Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33990198›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Translation of oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) recommendations into clinical practice.

Shalini K Vinod, Nisali T Wellege, Sara Kim, Kirsten J Duggan, Mirette Ibrahim, Jesmin Shafiq

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Breaking barriers in pathology: bridging gaps in multidisciplinary collaboration.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Multidisciplinary approach for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 2023 expert consensus of the Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shalini K VinodLiverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia. shalini.vinod@health.nsw.gov.au.
Nisali T WellegeSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Sara KimSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Kirsten J DugganIngham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Mirette IbrahimLiverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Jesmin ShafiqSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
South Western Sydney Local Health District · AULiverpool Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) processes differ according to clinical setting and tumour site. This can impact on decision making. This study aimed to evaluate the translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice across solid tumour MDMs at an academic centre.

methodsA retrospective audit of oncology records was performed for nine oncology MDMs held at Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia from 1/2/17-31/7/17. Information was collected on patient factors (age, gender, country of birth, language, postcode, performance status, comorbidities), tumour factors (diagnosis, stage) and MDM factors (number of MDMs, MDM recommendation). Management was audited up to a year post MDM to record management and identify reasons if discordant with MDM recommendations. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess for factors associated with concordant management.

resultsEight hundred thirty-five patients were discussed, median age was 65 years and 51.4% were males. 70.8% of patients were presented at first diagnosis, 77% discussed once and treatment recommended in 73.2%. Of 771 patients assessable for concordance, management was fully concordant in 79.4%, partially concordant in 12.8% and discordant in 7.8%. Concordance varied from 84.5% for lung MDM to 97.6% for breast MDMs. On multivariable analysis, breast and upper GI MDMs and discussion at multiple MDMs were significantly associated with concordant management. The most common reason for discordant management was patient/guardian decision (28.3%).

conclusionThere was variability in translation of MDM recommendations into clinical practice by tumour site. Routine measurement of implementation of MDM recommendations should be considered as a quality indicator of MDM practice.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationPatient Care TeamAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyRetrospective StudiesDecision makingHealth care quality indicatorHealth services researchHospital oncology servicePatient care team

Identifiers

PMID33990198
PMCPMC8120898
OpenAlexW3162856231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.