Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35257515›Full record

ReviewCancer medicine2022

Optimising the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings: A narrative review.

Thanh Hai Tran, Jasper de Boer, David E Gyorki, Meinir Krishnasamy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

4 authors.

Thanh Hai TranUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3133-3361
Jasper de BoerVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David E GyorkiVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Meinir KrishnasamyDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsPatient Care TeamClinical Decision-MakingData CollectionHumansProspective Studiescancercancer multidisciplinary team meetingsdecision-makingpatient care teamteamwork

Identifiers

PMID35257515
PMCPMC9089217

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.