Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35761282›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2022

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.

Janneke E W Walraven, Olga L van der Hel, J J M van der Hoeven, Valery E P P Lemmens, Rob H A Verhoeven, Ingrid M E Desar

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Indicators of maladaptive emotions in patients with cancer as assessed by oncologists and nurses.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janneke E W WalravenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Postbus 9101, huispost 415, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. janneke.walraven@radboudumc.nl.
Olga L van der HelDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Goldebaldkwartier 419, Utrecht, 3511 DT, The Netherlands.
J J M van der HoevenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Postbus 9101, huispost 415, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Valery E P P LemmensDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Goldebaldkwartier 419, Utrecht, 3511 DT, The Netherlands.
Rob H A VerhoevenDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Goldebaldkwartier 419, Utrecht, 3511 DT, The Netherlands.
Ingrid M E DesarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Postbus 9101, huispost 415, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiscussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs' efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement.

methodsRelevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01-01-1990 to 09-11-2021), using different descriptions of 'MDTM' and 'neoplasm' as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author.

resultsSeventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs.

conclusionsMDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPhysiciansHealth PersonnelHumansMedical OncologyPatient Care TeamDecision makingEducationEvaluationMultidisciplinary team meetingQualityTeam culture

Identifiers

PMID35761282
PMCPMC9238082
OpenAlexW4283590524

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.