SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Care on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bronchoscopic Ablation and Intratumoral Therapies for Lung Cancer: Expanding Local Treatment Beyond Surgical Resection.Cancers · 2026Review
- Impacts of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Meeting Presentation in a Clinical Quality Registry.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- Cancer pain awareness and communication practices among physicians in China: a nationwide mixed-methods study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Maintaining momentum: the history and future of lung cancer disparities in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) care is now recognized as the most effective approach to managing lung cancer treatment. While MDTs aim to improve coordination, decision-making, and patient outcomes, their impact on patient-reported outcomes, particularly quality of life (QoL), remains unclear.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to examine how the involvement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) in the care of patients with lung cancer affects patient-reported outcomes and to investigate the enablers and barriers for implementing and running MDT care in lung cancer management.
methodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus (up to March 2024) to identify studies comparing QoL outcomes in patients with lung cancer managed with and without MDT care. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the CASP tool, and findings were synthesized narratively. QoL outcomes were grouped into physical, functional, emotional, and social domains, and quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity across studies.
resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 10,341 patients, with 3760 in MDT groups and 6581 in non-MDT groups. The methodological quality of the studies varied, with 10 papers rated as moderate to high quality. The findings suggest that MDT care may contribute positively to emotional support, and physical well-being. Better patient satisfaction and communication in MDT settings. LIMITATION: Heterogeneity and the lack of standardized PRO tools in outcome measures and study design limited comparability.
conclusionsMDT care may have a beneficial impact on certain aspects of quality of life in patients with lung cancer, particularly emotional and physical well-being. However, more robust and standardized research is needed to determine the full extent of its benefits on patient-reported outcomes.
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.