ArticleBMJ open2026
Lung cancer multidisciplinary care status and evidence-practice gap: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with substantial variations in incidence, stage at diagnosis and outcomes across regions. High-quality, standardised diagnosis and treatment are essential to improving survival and quality of life. Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is a cornerstone of cancer care; however, its implementation faces barriers such as limited resources, uneven policy support and inequitable access to specialised care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. To date, no global scoping review has systematically mapped lung cancer MDC-covering implementation models, facilitators, barriers, policy frameworks, technology integration and evidence gaps. This review seeks to fill that gap and inform the optimisation of MDC models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework, underpinned by the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues, will be used for this scoping review. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will perform a comprehensive search of six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI, VIP and WanFang) and grey literature sources (ClinicalTrials.gov). In addition, we will screen the reference lists of included studies for further relevant publications. Two review authors will independently conduct the screening and data extraction processes; discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or discussion with a third review author. Findings will be presented graphically and tabularly, together with a narrative description. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will collect all data from published and grey literature, meaning ethical approval is not necessary. To disseminate our findings, we plan to use diverse means, such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MVSPH.
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.