ArticlePloS one2023
How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants' perspectives and limitations: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 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
- Exploring Green-Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles in Neurodegeneration: a Systematic Review of Cholinesterase Enzyme Interactions.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Pooled it
- Disruptions and Comprehensiveness of Patient Information in Multidisciplinary Virtual Tumor Boards: An Observational Study in Thoracic Cancer Care.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Task Requirements, Workflow Processes and Technological Constraints in Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumour Board Meetings: Insights for Extended Reality-Based Solutions in Thoracic Oncology.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Expert Review of the Strategies to Optimize Long-Term Outcomes After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Implementation of a virtual multi-disciplinary model of care for people affected by cancer: a qualitative evaluation.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Implementation of a student-run initiative to facilitate multidisciplinary cancer care in Pakistan: the Tumor Board Establishment Facilitation Forum.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The impact of tele-expertise in oncology: current state and future perspectives.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Understanding the effectiveness and quality of virtual cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): a systematic scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Mobilizing students to effect multidisciplinary cancer care: the Tumor Board Establishment Facilitation Forum.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Article
- In reply to: From Diagnosis to Survivorship: How the Tumor Boards Facilitation Forum (TEFF) Shapes the Breast Cancer Journey in Pakistan.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual multidisciplinary team meetings (VMDTM) provide a standard of care that is not limited by physical distance or social restrictions. And so, when the COVID-19 pandemic imposed irrefutable social restrictions and made in-person meetings impossible, many hospitals switched to the VMDTMs. Although the pandemic might have highlighted the ease of VMDTMs, these virtual meetings have existed over the past decade, albeit less in importance. Despite their recent importance, no review has previously assessed the feasibility of VMDTMs through the eyes of the participants, the barriers participants face, nor their comparison with the in-person format. We undertook this scoping review to map existing literature and assess the perspectives of VMDTM participants. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception till July 1st, 2023 to select studies that evaluated the perspectives of participants of VMDTMs regarding the core components that make up a VMDMT. Four authors, independently, extracted data from all included studies. Two authors separated data into major themes and sub-themes.
resultsWe identified six core, intrinsic aspects of a VMDTM that are essential to its structure: (1) organization, (2) case discussion and decision-making, (3) teamwork and communication, (4) training and education, (5) technology, and (6) patient-related aspect. VMDTMs have a high overall satisfaction rating amongst participants. The preference, however, is for a hybrid model of multidisciplinary teams. VMDTMs offer support to isolated physicians, help address complex cases, and offer information that may not be available elsewhere. The periodical nature of VMDTMs is appropriate for their consideration as CMEs. Adequate technology is paramount to the sustenance of the format.
conclusionVMDTMs are efficient and offer a multidisciplinary consensus without geographical limitations. Despite certain technical and social limitations, VMDTM participants are highly satisfied with the format, although the preference lies with a hybrid model.
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.