ArticleCancer medicine2026
Validation of the Measure of Case-Discussion Complexity and the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making for Streamlining Workflow and Evaluating Decision-Making in US Tumor Boards.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical guidelines for cancer care recognize multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) as a gold standard for providing quality of care for cancer patients. However, the requirements and workflow for MTBs varies across countries, influencing their roles in decision making, care efficiency, and medical education. This study compares validity and performance of MDT evaluation tools, Measure of case-Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) and Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MODe) in the UK versus US.
methodsMeDiC, developed to assess case complexity, and MODe, designed to evaluate decision-making quality, were applied to 555 cases and 104 MTB meetings from urological and gynecological tumor boards at an academic cancer center between December 2021 and June 2024. MeDiC was used to assess clinical complexity through pathology, patient, and treatment factors, while MODe evaluated decision-making quality based on patient information and team contributions. All assessors underwent formal training. Data analysis included reliability testing using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kappa, Cronbach's alpha, and bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals for correlation estimates.
resultsMeDiC demonstrated good reliability (ICC = 0.849) in the US MDT and identified key factors contributing to complexity, such as malignancy and significant comorbidities. The tool also revealed that case discussion duration was not significantly associated with complexity levels. MODe similarly showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.628), with high correlations between decision-making quality and contributions from core specialties such as medical oncologists.
conclusionsThe validity of MeDiC and MODe in the US was similar to the tools' performance in the UK settings. However, case complexity metrics demonstrated significant selection of more complex cases for US MDT presentation compared to UK MDTs.
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.