Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40325792›Full record

ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025

Lower MeDiC score is associated with non-referral to multidisciplinary team meeting discussion in bladder cancer patients: a nationwide and population-based study.

Jessica Wihl, Oskar Hagberg, Firas Aljabery, Truls Gårdmark, Abolfazl Hosseini, Staffan Jahnson, Tomas Jerlström, Viveka Ströck, Karin Söderkvist, Anders Ullén and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jessica WihlDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Division of Oncology and Pathology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Regional Cancer Centre South, Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden; Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. jessica.wihl@skane.se.ORCID 0000-0002-6708-3563
Oskar HagbergDepartment of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Firas AljaberyDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Urology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Truls GårdmarkDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abolfazl HosseiniDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Staffan JahnsonDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Urology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Tomas JerlströmDepartment of Urology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Viveka StröckDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karin SöderkvistDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Umeå University, Sweden.
Anders UllénDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Pelvic Cancer, Genitourinary Oncology and Urology unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars HolmbergDepartment of Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Christel HäggströmDepartment of Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Diagnostics and Intervention, Registry Center North, Umeå University, Umeå, SwedenDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Registry Center North, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden and.
Fredrik LiedbergDepartment of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe Measure of Case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) tool was created to gauge case complexity at multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for case selection and prioritization. We aimed to assess applicability and association with MeDiC score and non-compliance with national guideline-recommendations for MDTM referral in a bladder cancer setting. MATERIAL AND

methodsA modified MeDiC scoring system was applied in 8955 subjects with localized (T1-T4N0M0) or metastasized disease as per the Bladder Cancer Data Base Sweden (BladderBaSe) 2.0. Association between MeDiC score and not being discussed at MDTM was investigated by multivariable logistic regression, and further explored in relation to calendar time period, healthcare region, age at diagnosis and hospital volume. RESULTS AND

interpretationMedian total MeDiC score was lower in individuals not being discussed at an MDTM (7.0 Inter Quartile Range [IQR] 6.0-9.0) compared to those who were (8.0 IQR 6.0-10.0). Adjusted odds ratio for not being discussed at an MDTM was 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-2.4) for a MeDiC score in the lower quartile, as compared to the highest quartile, with higher estimates when performing stratified analyses in later calendar years and in specific healthcare regions. Our data indicate that the MeDiC score is applicable in bladder cancer patients, and we identified an association between lower MeDiC score and not being discussed at an MDTM.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationPatient Care TeamReferral and ConsultationUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedSweden

Identifiers

PMID40325792
PMCPMC12067983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.