ArticleCureus2025
Reforming Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Introducing a Novel Clinical Radiological Assessment Meeting (CRAM) to Reduce Response Times and Workloads.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are now considered part of the standard of care for decision-making and management of patients with cancer. However, most MDTs now face capacity issues and supplementary approaches should be considered. We report our experience with a novel clinical radiological assessment meeting (CRAM) as a 'mini-MDT' to expedite decision-making and enhance the function of the parallel specialist MDT. Methods A retrospective analysis of new referrals to a high-volume peritoneal malignancy unit between September 2016 and August 2018 was performed. Time to first response and decision following referral were assessed for the traditional referral pathway and after the introduction of the CRAM in September 2017. Response times were calculated from the receipt of the referral to the date of the first response and were classified into one of four categories: 'specialist peritoneal malignancy MDT review,' 'outpatient review,' 'recommendation for local follow-up', or 'further information required'. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the response times between the two pathways. Results In total, 1478 new referrals were received in the two-year period, 769 pre-CRAM and 709 after CRAM introduction. The median referral to first response time was eight days using traditional pathways and five days after the introduction of the CRAM (p <0.001). In the traditional pathway, 234/769 (30.4%) patients were discussed further in the specialist MDT, compared with 122/709 (17.2%) after the CRAM assessment. Conclusion A novel CRAM significantly reduced first response times to the referring team facilitating rapid and safe assessment with quicker decisions for the patients. It enabled more appropriate use of an ever-expanding MDT.
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.