ArticleBJS open2026
Association of multidisciplinary team meetings and survival in gastric cancer patients: nationwide cohort study.
Article in BJS 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince 2015, multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion is recommended for all Swedish patients diagnosed with gastric cancer. However, few studies have explored the association of MDT discussion with survival.
methodsThis study included all Swedish patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2021. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the probability of receiving treatment recommendation at an MDT meeting, whereas the association between receiving an MDT treatment recommendation and overall survival was examined using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods.
resultsOf 7813 patients, 5279 (68%) were discussed at an MDT meeting. Advanced age (80-89 years; odds ratio (OR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.21 to 0.43) and lower performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1; OR 0.68; 95% c.i. 0.56 to 0.81) were associated with a lower probability of receiving an MDT treatment recommendation. Clinical disease stages II and III, compared with stage I, were associated with a higher probability of an MDT discussion (OR 1.38 (95% c.i. 1.10 to 1.75) and 1.42; (95% c.i. 1.09 to 1.85), respectively), as was a later year of diagnosis (OR 1.37; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 1.40). In adjusted survival analysis with multivariable Cox regression, MDT discussion was associated with better survival (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% c.i. 0.83 to 0.95). In addition, median survival was longer in the group with than without MDT treatment recommendations (12.0 versus 5.9 months).
conclusionReceiving a treatment recommendation at an MDT meeting was associated with better survival in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients with advanced disease and older age were less likely to receive an MDT treatment recommendation but, if they did, it was associated with better survival.
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.