ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Do Surgical Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings Make a Difference?
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tele-Expert Consultation for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of the CONNECT-LR System.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Observational
- Article
- Modern Treatment of Skeletal Metastases: Multidisciplinarity and the Concept of Oligometastasis in the Recent Literature.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are important but resource-expensive components of surgical and oncologic care. This cohort study investigated the effectiveness of surgical MDT meetings by assessing the predictability of MDT meeting recommendations, the degree that patient management plans are changed by discussion, and the incidence of recommendation implementation.
methodsMultidisciplinary team meetings at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in South Australia were audited for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) and colorectal (CR) surgical units from August 2021 to June 2022. All cases referred for MDT meeting discussion were included. Prospectively obtained pre-MDT meeting management plans were compared with formal MDT meeting recommendations to assess for concordance and degree of change. Patient records were assessed after 8 months for MDT meeting recommendation implementation. Multivariable analysis of patient factors was performed to identify associations between MDT meeting recommendation predictability and implementation.
resultsIn 438 patient cases, discussed during 30 MDT meetings, 317 (72.37%) were correctly predicted. Specifically, 226 (51.6%) were correct with no change, 28 (6.39%) were correct with minor changes, 40 (9.13%) were correct with moderate changes, and 23 (5.25%) were correct with major changes. The UGI and CR cohorts differed significantly in moderate changes (P = 0.0217). The female patients were 1.62 times more likely than the male patients to have pre-MDT meeting management plans predicted (P = 0.0201). Formal MDT meeting recommendations were implemented in 380 (89.62%) cases.
conclusionsThe MDT meetings changed management for almost 1 in 2 patients discussed. Other than female sex, no identifiable patient factors increased the likelihood of predictability, and no factors predicted recommendation implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39550481What 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.