ArticleBMC health services research2024
Understanding the effectiveness and quality of virtual cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 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
- Application of a WeChat-Based Multidisciplinary Team Care Program for the Management of Patients After Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Cohort Study.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Team Care for Early-Stage Lung Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and Emerging Economies: Current Position and Call for Action.Thoracic cancer · 2026Review
- Geographic access as a modifiable determinant of cancer care: perspectives on hub-and-spoke oncology networks, travel burden and time toxicity.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- 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
- Multidisciplinary team diagnosis and treatment of well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma: current landscape and future prospects.The oncologist · 2026Review
- Implementation of a virtual multi-disciplinary model of care for people affected by cancer: a qualitative evaluation.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Preserving Continuity and Trust in Primary Care: Strategies for Implementing Team-Based Models in South Tyrol, Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Understanding the effectiveness and quality of virtual cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): a systematic scoping review.BMC health services research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCancer multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTM) assemble clinical experts to make diagnostic and treatment recommendations. MDTMs can take place in person, virtually, or in a hybrid format. Virtual and hybrid MDTMs have been in use for over two decades. This systematic scoping review aims to map the evidence on virtual and hybrid MDTM formats over time, providing insights into their quality, and the facilitators and barriers to their effective delivery.
methodsThe PRISMA scoping review checklist has been followed. A systematic search of PubMed, PsychINFO, and Embase between 1990-2023 identified 9399 records. These were independently screened by two researchers to identify primary research of any design that assessed quality or effectiveness of cancer VMDTMs. Results were narratively synthesised.
resultsEight quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed-methods studies were included. All were observational and most were retrospective (n = 8). Varied outcome measures were used to evaluate meeting quality, including treatment recommendations, survival, time from diagnosis, and overall attendance. VMDTMs were superior (N = 6) or sometimes equivalent (N = 4) to face-to-face meetings. Studies identified implementation factors critical to their effective delivery, including internet-stability and chairing.
conclusionThe heterogeneous literature suggests VMDTMs offer some benefits over face-to-face meetings. Training and infrastructure are key to prevent risks to patient safety. A definitive comparative evaluation is needed to inform best practice.
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.