Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37972143›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants' perspectives and limitations: A scoping review.

Muhammad Abdul Rehman, Unaiza Naeem, Anooja Rani, Umm E Salma Shabbar Banatwala, Afia Salman, Muhammad Abdullah Khalid, Areeba Ikram, Erfa Tahir

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Muhammad Abdul RehmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-3540-0998
Unaiza NaeemDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-0455-7864
Anooja RaniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Umm E Salma Shabbar BanatwalaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Afia SalmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Abdullah KhalidDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Areeba IkramDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Erfa TahirDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Dow University of Health Sciences · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19PandemicsHumansPatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID37972143
PMCPMC10653537
OpenAlexW4388727849

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.