ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
The Impact of Multidisciplinary Conference on Clinicians.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary conferences (MDC) for rectal cancer yield benefits to patients; however, whether they confer benefits to clinicians has not been explicitly investigated. This qualitative study evaluates the impact of our local rectal cancer MDC on physician participants. MATERIALS AND
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted via a virtual video-calling platform and recorded and transcribed. Participants included staff clinicians and fellowship-level trainees from medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, radiology, and pathology, all of whom participate in our weekly rectal cancer MDC. Qualitative analysis using NVivo was completed, and themes and subthemes were coded and tabulated using a constant comparative method.
resultsA total of 21 clinicians participated in the study, representing all five disciplines. Four major themes were identified: benefits, challenges, successes, and improvements. The most significant major theme was benefits, discussed by all 21 participants. Subthemes in this category were benefits to clinicians, which included academic opportunities and strengthening of interdisciplinary communication and collegiality. Major themes also included challenges and successes, mentioned in all interviews, as well as improvements, which were mentioned in most interviews. Subthemes in the challenges category included timing of meetings and workload. Subthemes for successes included the virtual platform as well as adequate representation and administrative support.
conclusionsMultidisciplinary conference has added value beyond that which is experienced by patients. This includes enhanced interdisciplinary communication and collegiality, which in turn can impact overall physician satisfaction. Challenges are inherent, including workload and accessibility; however, these can be balanced with administrative support and virtual platform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40760315What 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.