ReviewGlobal journal on quality and safety in healthcare2024
Quality Measures for Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and Their Role in Improving Cancer Care.
Review in Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Documentation: Assessing its Frequency, Quality, and Impact.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Role and Characteristic of Multidisciplinarity in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Management and Care Pathway Certification: Bottom-Up Approach of the MDT Project in Italy.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Building an integrated multidisciplinary care system for emergency surgery in abdominal cancer: a patient-centered perspective.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Team-based approach to arteriovenous access management.Seminars in vascular surgery · 2025Review
- Teaching Oncology in the Medical Degree: Integrating Knowledge and Experience of a Multidisciplinary Tumour Board.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.Cancers · 2025Article
- Case Report: Type A invasive thymoma with renal metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Cancer Treatment for Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are widely used in managing patients with cancer, their impact on patient care and outcome is not routinely measured in different settings. The authors conducted a literature review in Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science using the following keywords: cancer, multidisciplinary, tumor board, quality performance indicator, lung cancer, and lymphoma. Standards from various accreditation and professional organizations were reviewed to compile relevant standards for MTB. A list of quality performance indicators that can be used to improve MTBs' performance and impact was compiled. Specific examples for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer MTBs were presented. Guidance was provided to help MTB team members select implement the appropriate quality measures. The functions and impact of MTBs should be monitored and evaluated by a set of measures that help guide MTBs to improve their performance and provide better care to their patients.
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.