SynthesisBMC health services research2022
Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.
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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Hormonal therapy or chemotherapy for advanced endometrial cancer? A mixed-methods study assessing physicians' attitudes.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Multi-Disciplinary Team Meetings in a Resource-Constrained System: Are Patients Receiving the Treatment Recommended?World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Commission on Cancer Quality Measure for Omission of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SNB) in Women Age 70 or Older with Hormone Receptor-Positive (HR+) Invasive Breast Cancer (IBC) Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery (BCS): Review of Historical Performance.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Return on investment, return of risk: private equity in gastrointestinal cancer care.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Developing recommendations for digital collaboration meetings across healthcare levels and services for patients with chronic pain- a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Moral reasoning during vascular surgeons' case conferences: finding the balance of risk and benefit by exploring the clinical details.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary team diagnosis and treatment of well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma: current landscape and future prospects.The oncologist · 2026Review
- A Dual-Perspective Comparison of Classical and Clinic-Based Multidisciplinary Team Models in Cancer Care: A Cross-Sectional and Qualitative Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Operationalising MDT streamlining through standards of care: a framework for specification and implementation.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Prospective multi-centre evaluation of guideline-based artificial intelligence to streamline multidisciplinary tumour board.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Incentive Configuration Pathways for Standardization of Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams in China: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Editorial: Multidisciplinary Team Conference, What Is It Good For?Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- From leader to peer - specializing physicians' understanding of their multiple positions in interprofessional health care teams.Medical education online · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Heterogeneity of treatment preferences in the absence of guideline recommendations - a case vignette study in colorectal cancer tumor boards in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Exploring barriers and facilitators to capturing cancer stage at diagnosis in a population-based cancer registry: a cross-sectional survey of health information managers/clinical coders and multidisciplinary team members.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Train clinical AI to reason like a team of doctors.Nature · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.