Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36429708›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

The Impact of Tumor Boards on Breast Cancer Care: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Andrea Di Pilla, Maria Rosaria Cozzolino, Alice Mannocci, Elettra Carini, Federica Spina, Francesco Castrini, Albino Grieco, Rosaria Messina, Gianfranco Damiani, Maria Lucia Specchia

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea Di PillaClinical Governance Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5951-9056
Maria Rosaria CozzolinoAzienda Regionale Emergenza Sanitaria 118, Via Portuense 240, 00149 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1780-5078
Alice MannocciFaculty of Economics, Università "Universitas Mercatorum", Piazza Mattei 10, 00186 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8527-6940
Elettra CariniASL Roma 1, 00193 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9422-3285
Federica SpinaDepartment of Maternal, Children and Adult Medical and Surgical Sciences, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, 41121 Modena, Italy.
Francesco CastriniDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4530-3016
Albino GriecoDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4605-9297
Rosaria MessinaDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1244-2282
Gianfranco DamianiDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3028-6188
Maria Lucia SpecchiaClinical Governance Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3859-4591
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITASL Roma · ITMercatorum University · ITUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, with a complex clinical path that involves several professionals and that requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, the effectiveness of breast cancer multidisciplinary care and the processes that contribute to its effectiveness have not yet been firmly determined. This study aims to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on breast cancer care outcomes. A systematic literature review was carried out through Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed databases. The search was restricted to articles assessing the impact of MTB implementation on breast cancer care. Fourteen studies were included in the review. The most analyzed outcomes were diagnosis, therapy and survival. Four out of four studies showed that, with implementation of an MTB, there was a change in diagnosis, and all reported changes in the treatment plan after MTB implementation. A pooled analysis of three studies reporting results on the outcome "mortality" showed a statistically significant 14% reduction in mortality relative risk for patients enrolled versus not enrolled in an MTB. This study shows that MTB implementation is a valuable approach to deliver appropriate and effective care to patients affected by breast cancer and to improve their outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastCritical PathwaysFemaleHumansPublicationsPubMedbreast cancerdiagnosishealthcaremultidisciplinary teamoutcomessurvivaltreatmenttumor board

Identifiers

PMID36429708
PMCPMC9690234
OpenAlexW4309742761

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.