ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2024
Multi-disciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in Norway and Denmark: results from national surveys and observations with MDT-MODe.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Impacts of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Meeting Presentation in a Clinical Quality Registry.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary team meetings for lung cancer in the Nordic countries: results from a Nordic survey.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Impact of multidisciplinary team discrepancies on comparative lung cancer outcome analyses and treatment equality.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Factors behind favorable long-term lung cancer survival in Norway compared to Denmark: a retrospective cohort study.European clinical respiratory journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMulti-disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' of lung cancer care. MDTs improve adherence to clinical guidelines for lung cancer patients. In this study, we describe and compare lung cancer MDTs in Denmark and Norway by combining national surveys and the MDT-Metric for the Observation of Decision-making (MDT-MODe) instrument. MATERIALS AND
methodIdentical surveys were sent out to all lung cancer MDT centers in Denmark and Norway by the Danish Lung Cancer Group and the Norwegian Lung Cancer Group. Six MDT centers, three in Denmark and three in Norway, were observed using the MDT-MODe instrument. RESULTS AND
interpretationWe found similar organization of MDT meetings in both countries, with the main difference being more local MDT meetings in Norway. All lung cancer MDTs were chaired by respiratory physicians and attended by a radiologist. Other members included oncologists, pathologists, thoracic surgeons, specialist nurses, nuclear medicine specialists and junior doctors. Overall, members reported that they had sufficient time for preparation and attending MDT meetings. With the MDT-MODe instrument it was found that the MDT chairs, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists all contributed positively to case discussion. Comorbidities were included in the discussion of most patients while the patient's view and psychosocial issues were less often discussed. A treatment decision was reached in 79.7% of cases discussed. In conclusion, we found similar settings and overall good quality concerning lung cancer MDT meetings in Denmark and Norway.
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.