Cited by 704Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationHealthcare Systems and Technology

The Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Patient Assessment, Management and Outcomes in Oncology Settings: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Pillay, Brindha, Wootten, Addie C., Crowe, Helen, Corcoran, Niall, Tran, Ben, Bowden, Patrick, Crowe, Jane, Costello, Anthony J.·2016·Cancer Treatment Reviews

Abstract

Background Conducting regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings requires significant investment of time and finances. It is thus important to assess the empirical benefits of such practice. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of MDT meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searching OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from 1995 to April 2015, using the keywords: multidisciplinary team meeting* OR multidisciplinary discussion* OR multidisciplinary conference* OR case review meeting* OR multidisciplinary care forum* OR multidisciplinary tumour board* OR case conference* OR case discussion* AND oncology OR cancer. Studies were included if they assessed measurable outcomes, and used a comparison group and/or a pre- and post-test design. Results Twenty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. There was limited evidence for improved survival outcomes of patients discussed at MDT meetings. Between 4% and 45% of patients discussed at MDT meetings experienced changes in diagnostic reports following the meeting. Patients discussed at MDT meetings were more likely to receive more accurate and complete pre-operative staging, and neo-adjuvant/adjuvant treatment. Quality of studies was affected by selection bias and the use of historical cohorts impacted study quality. Conclusions MDT meetings impact upon patient assessment and management practices. Howe…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.007

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pillay, B., Wootten, A. C., Crowe, H., Corcoran, N., Tran, B., Bowden, P., Crowe, J., & Costello, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Epworth Hospital (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Pillay, Brindha
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
42
Pages
56-72
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2193039967
Cited by
704
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 75 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 10
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Treatment Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
multidisciplinary team meetings, multidisciplinary tumor board, cancer care, patient outcomes, survival, diagnostic reports, patient assessment, quality of life, patient satisfaction, cross-referral
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Medical Audit, Medicine, Neoplasm Staging, Neoplasms, Patient Care Planning, Patient Care Team, Preoperative Care, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Radiotherapy, Adjuvant, Disease Management, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Interdisciplinary Communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review