ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2022
Collaboration Between Physicians from Different Medical Specialties in Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fertility-sparing strategy in a rare case of uterine adenosarcoma and consecutive spontaneous pregnancy and livebirth.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Hemodialysis Facilities, Vascular Access Surgeons, and Central Venous Catheter Use: A Retrospective Cohort Study.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2026Article
- Workforce and system implications of unprofessional behavior: a nationwide mixed-methods study in Thai emergency medicine.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Referral patterns, influencing factors, and satisfaction related to referrals of patients with rheumatic diseases to other healthcare professionals: an online survey of rheumatologists.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Short-term cognitive learning outcomes in team-based learning: is the permanent team important?Medical education online · 2024Article
- Improving communication to increase uptake of high-risk breast cancer prevention appointments: Building a better letter.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Interprofessional education in cardiothoracic surgery: a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Twelve tips for the transition from training to first faculty position.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
- Review
- Optimizing Primary Healthcare in Hong Kong: Strategies for the Successful Integration of Radiology Services.Cureus · 2023Review
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
Health care today is characterized by an increasing number of patients with comorbidities for whom interphysician collaboration seems very important. We reviewed the literature to understand what factors affect interphysician collaboration, determine how interphysician collaboration is measured, and determine its effects. We systematically searched six major databases. Based on 63 articles, we identified five categories that influence interphysician collaboration: personal factors, professional factors, preconditions and tools, organizational elements, and contextual characteristics. We identified a diverse set of mostly unvalidated tools for measuring interphysician collaboration that focus on information being transferred and understood, frequency of interaction and tone of the relationship, and value judgements about quality or satisfaction. We found that interphysician collaboration increased clinical outcomes as well as patient and staff satisfaction, while error rates and length of stay were reduced. The results should, however, be interpreted with caution, as most of the studies provide a low level of evidence.
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.