ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2021
Contributions to Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Cancer Care: Predictors of Complete Case Information and Comprehensive Case Discussions.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Initial programme theory developing for interprofessional case discussions (InCaD) in acute hospital care: a realist approach.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Multidisciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in the Nordic countries: results from a Nordic survey.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- A study of factors influencing access to MDT among patients with stage III to stage IV colorectal cancer: a national multicenter survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The role and synergistic mechanisms of clinical nurse specialists in cancer multidisciplinary treatment in China: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Factors Influencing Perceived Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Effectiveness in Teams Addressing Work-Related Respiratory Diseases: A Qualitative Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of Integrated Multidisciplinary Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Care: A Mixed Methods Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
- Precision Metrics: A Narrative Review on Unlocking the Power of KPIs in Radiology for Enhanced Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- 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
- Integrated Electronic Health Record of Multidisciplinary Professionals Throughout the Cancer Care Pathway: A Pilot Study Exploring Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Shared-Decision-Making Experiences in Breast Cancer Care with and without Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences: A Mixed-Methods-Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Facilitating High Quality Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study of Australian Chairpersons' Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Team Meetings.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
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
purposeMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings integrate complex information and base recommendations for clinical management on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional decision-making. To support high-quality decision-making and define key performance indicators, we aimed to determine completeness of case information and contributions to MDT case discussions in cancer care.
methodsIn a prospective observational study design, based on three MDTs, we applied the Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (MODe) tool to assess the quality of case presentation and team members' contributions to case discussions. The MDTs handled patients with brain tumors, soft tissue sarcomas and hepatobiliary cancers. The results were correlated to patient and team characteristics and to MDT leadership skills.
resultsData were collected from 349 case discussions during 32 MDT meetings. Information on radiology received the highest scores, followed by case history and information on histopathology. Patient-related information was less frequently mentioned and generally received low scores. Contributions to the case discussions were predominantly by the chair, surgeons, and oncologists with limited contributions from nurses. Leadership skills showed a positive correlation with case presentations scores and failure to reach a treatment recommendation correlated with lower case discussion scores.
conclusionConsiderable resources are spent on MDT meetings in cancer care, which motivate initiatives to ensure high-quality and efficient decision-making processes. We identify unbalanced contributions from team members during MDT meetings, demonstrate limited provision of patient-related information and show that leadership skills may positively influence the quality of the case presentations. We suggest that MDTs should consider and develop these aspects to ensure high-quality MDT-based case management and 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.