ReviewCancer medicine2022
Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disruptions and Comprehensiveness of Patient Information in Multidisciplinary Virtual Tumor Boards: An Observational Study in Thoracic Cancer Care.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Treatment Patterns and Decision Drivers in Chinese Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Results from a National Physician Survey.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Building an integrated multidisciplinary care system for emergency surgery in abdominal cancer: a patient-centered perspective.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Perceived Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Effectiveness in Teams Addressing Work-Related Respiratory Diseases: A Qualitative Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- [Clinical efficacy of multidisciplinary team collaboration in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2025Article
- Article
- [Clinical application of multidisciplinary team in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic refractory wounds].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
- Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
- Registry-derived stage (RD-Stage) for capturing stage at diagnosis for pancreatic carcinoma in Australia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical analysis of decision implementation by a multidisciplinary team in cervical cancer cases in Ganzhou, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review.Cancer medicine · 2022Review
- Impact of Health and Health-Related Domains on Professionals' Perceptions of Care Complexity, Their Preferences for Integrated Care Planning and Interprofessional Collaboration.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding of factors that contribute to implementation of effective cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) is still limited. Published literature on the effect of teamwork function, leadership roles, decision-making processes and structural components on the quality of MDMs was reviewed and synthesised.
methodsIn this paper, a MEDLINE review (September 2020) was performed to assess clinical decision-making in the context of MDM discussions.
resultsTwenty-nine eligible studies were included. Six studies addressed the infrastructural aspects of MDMs. Nine studies used either qualitative or mixed method approach to develop and validate observational tools to assess the quality of MDMs. Seven studies used qualitative approaches to explore the opinions of MDM members on factors that impact on the effectiveness of MDMs. Five studies used validated observational tools to observe and assess the effectiveness of MDMs. One prospective study explored the relationship between quality of information presented at MDMs and ability of MDM members to make clinical decisions. The final study prospectively tested the ability of a multicomponent intervention to improve decision-making processes within MDMs.
conclusionsA broad range of factors including teamwork, leadership, case complexity, decision-making processes and availability of patient information were identified to impact the quality of MDMs. Evidence currently available largely focuses on the development of tools to identify factors in need of improvement to optimise MDMs. Robust research is required to identify the factors that are demonstrated to enhance MDM quality which can then aid the standardisation of how MDMs are conducted.
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.