SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many healthcare systems, multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs or tumour boards) play a central role in cancer care. MDTs give treatment recommendations based on the current medical knowledge of therapies and drugs. However, they require a high range of financial, human, and time resources, while the effectiveness of MDTs and their benefits for patients is still insufficiently scientifically evaluated. A comprehensive systematic review of the existing literature was conducted, summarising the available evidence on the effectiveness of MDTs. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse the structures and processes of MDTs, to identify factors that are crucial running a high-quality MDT regarding team performance, and their impact on patient management.
methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature in PubMed, using different keywords regarding the effectiveness of multidisciplinary teamwork in MDTs. Studies published between 2011 and November 2025 concerning MDTs in clinical settings were considered. PICO elements were used as parameters to set up inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selection of articles followed the PRISMA 2020 statement. Three researchers independently screened and evaluated 371 full-text articles out of 3,430 abstracts through the Rayyan tool and Endnote. Data from 97 selected studies were extracted, including 85 original research articles and 12 systematic or scoping reviews. Relevant information was categorised according to author, study design, methods, objective, and conclusion.
resultsResults show the pivotal role of MDTs in cancer care for improving quality, coordination, and evidence-based discussions in cancer care. Although validated key performance indicators for MDT quality exist, they are inconsistently implemented in routine practice due to structural, organisational, and resource-related constraints.
conclusionFuture studies should focus on assessing MDTs within specific tumour types to facilitate comparability and to better understand their impact on patient management outcomes. Implementational constraints should be faced by targeted organisational development, systematic quality assessment, leadership and communication training to further improve MDT performance, decision-making and quality of care.
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.