SynthesisBMC cancer2022
Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multidisciplinary team approach to pelvic floor disorders: A systematic review.Biomedical journal · 2026Pooled 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
- Multidisciplinary meeting review in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Pooled it
- Association of multidisciplinary team management with survival in sinonasal malignancies: a real-world IPTW cohort study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Documentation: Assessing its Frequency, Quality, and Impact.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Multi-Disciplinary Team Meetings in a Resource-Constrained System: Are Patients Receiving the Treatment Recommended?World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary management of interstitial lung disease in autoimmune rheumatic diseases: an Italian Delphi consensus.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Understanding and Addressing Clinical Variation in Rectal Cancer Care: Application of an Analytic Framework.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- AI-MDT: an automatic and intelligent multidisciplinary team consultations platform for lung cancer diagnosis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- EvoMDT: a self-evolving multi-agent system for structured clinical decision-making in multi-cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors Influencing Perceived Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Effectiveness in Teams Addressing Work-Related Respiratory Diseases: A Qualitative Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Global Research Trends in Chronic Care for Comorbid Allergic Diseases: A Web of Science Bibliometric Review (1999-2024).Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
- Editorial: Multidisciplinary Team Conference, What Is It Good For?Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Team-based approach to arteriovenous access management.Seminars in vascular surgery · 2025Review
- Enhancing the quality management of hospital environmental surfaces through the application of a multidisciplinary team model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of rectal cancer multidisciplinary conferences on patient care plans.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Modern Treatment of Skeletal Metastases: Multidisciplinarity and the Concept of Oligometastasis in the Recent Literature.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Health Care Professional Adherence to Breast Cancer Management Guidelines in Nigeria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Quality Improvement of Single-Institution Craniofacial Center Multidisciplinary Meetings Using Standardized Meeting Guides.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement.
methodsMedline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type.
resultsThe search returned 7930 results. 18 studies were included. In total 7 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2 to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork.
conclusionsSeveral tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.
trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42021234326 .
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.