ArticleEcancermedicalscience2025
Multispecialty sessions model for comprehensive care and decision-making in cancer patients.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 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.
- Failure mode and effects analysis nursing model improves recovery and quality of life post-laparoscopic extended radical colectomy for colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- The role and synergistic mechanisms of clinical nurse specialists in cancer multidisciplinary treatment in China: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Empirical Study on the Operational Status and Key Influencing Factors of Outpatient Multidisciplinary (MDT) Service Model: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sichuan Province, China.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of the oncology patient is complex, due to late diagnosis, treatment and costs, affecting the medical, psychological, nutritional and economic areas. The creation of a multispecialty team, with specialists from health and other fields, is the characteristic of the institute. Since 1920, multidisciplinary has evolved and stood out in developed countries; in Mexico and continues to grow. Although it presents challenges, such as lack of time and coordination, its implementation significantly improves the comprehensive approach to patients. Methods: A retrospective study conducted at the Instituto Oncológico Nacional (ION) in Guadalajara, Mexico, was conducted from April 2019 to December 2023, involving multispecialty sessions via Zoom for oncology patients. Information were collected from medical records with specific inclusion criteria, for the creation of a database in Excel and subsequent analysis with the IBM SPSS Statistics 22 tool. Results: 93.09% of the patients were placed in a specialised unit, while 6.91% in 'other tumours'. 37.2% of the sessions were held to establish treatment, 32% for diagnosis and 30.8% for both. The breast tumour unit had the most sessions (15%) and the robotic surgery unit had the least sessions (0.8%). 74.9% of the cases required one session and 25.1% required more sessions. An average saving of 5 consultations were generated; 68.8% of the sessions met their objectives and were followed up. Conclusion: Multispecialty virtual sessions in ION generate significant benefits: they reduce waiting times, save resources, improve access to specialised units and a comprehensive approach. Success is due to team coordination, communication between specialists and patients and implementation of decision making. It is recommended to promote this approach to optimise clinical outcomes and quality of life, overcoming logistical barriers and evaluating its long-term impact.
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.