ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2026
Perspectives and challenges of multidisciplinary collaboration in the treatment of metastatic spinal disease: Insights from an international survey.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abstract: BackgroundAdvances in systemic therapies, radiotherapy, and surgery have made the management of metastatic spinal disease (MSD) more complex, increasing the need for multidisciplinary collaboration. This study aims to explore physicians' perspectives on multidisciplinary collaboration and to identify challenges in delivering multidisciplinary care for patients with MSD. Methods: A cross-sectional, global, internet-based survey was distributed among medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, orthopedic surgeons, and neurosurgeons involved in the management of MSD. Questions focused on the effectiveness of current multidisciplinary collaboration, outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration, and barriers to providing multidisciplinary care. Results: A total of 120 physicians completed the survey: 26 (22%) medical oncologists, 34 (28%) radiation oncologists, 31 (26%) orthopedic surgeons, and 29 (24%) neurosurgeons. Across all four specialties, approximately 75% considered current collaboration among medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and spine surgeons effective. In total, 49% of respondents observed cases in which preventable complications occurred due to a perceived lack of multidisciplinary collaboration, and 69% reported observing cases where a lack of multidisciplinary collaboration resulted in the selection of suboptimal treatment strategies. Overall, respondents reported 162 challenges in delivering multidisciplinary care for patients with MSD, most commonly citing limited regional coordination between hospitals (28%) and insufficient collaboration among specialties (18%). Conclusions: Although most respondents viewed current multidisciplinary collaboration as effective, many reported observing cases where a lack of collaboration led to preventable complications or suboptimal care. These findings highlight the importance of strengthening multidisciplinary collaboration and enhancing regional coordination to improve outcomes for patients with MSD.
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.