Observational studyIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Improved Implementation of Tumor Board Decisions: A Retrospective Single Center Observational Study in Germany.
Observational study in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTumor boards (TUBs) are interdisciplinary meetings designed to determine the most effective cancer therapies and improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess which TUB therapy recommendations were easily implemented and to identify factors that hindered their implementation in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, data from ten TUBs held at the University Hospital Bonn between 2014 and 2016 were analyzed. The dataset included 7,152 patients and 13,050 therapy recommendations. The degree of adherence to the recommended therapies was classified into four categories. Additionally, reasons for deviations from the recommendations were categorized based on medical record reviews.
resultsOn average, 84.2% of recommendations were implemented: 68.1% were fully and 16.1% partially implemented. Deviations occurred in 8.6% of cases. The most common reasons for partial implementation were therapy changes based on new clinical findings or physician decisions (16.7%) and patient preferences (10.4%). The leading reason for complete deviation from the recommendation was lack of documentation (51.3%).
conclusionMost TUB recommendations across ten medical disciplines were fully or partially implemented. However, there remains potential for improvement, particularly in ensuring consistent documentation and integrating patient preferences into clinical decision-making.
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.