Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 579

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women

Open access
Kesson, E. M., Allardice, G. M., George, W. D., Burns, H. J. G., Morrison, D. S.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of multidisciplinary care on survival in women treated for breast cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative, non-randomised, interventional cohort study. SETTING: NHS hospitals, health boards in the west of Scotland, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 14,358 patients diagnosed with symptomatic invasive breast cancer between 1990 and 2000, residing in health board areas in the west of Scotland. 13,722 (95.6%) patients were eligible (excluding 16 diagnoses of inflammatory cancers and 620 diagnoses of breast cancer at death). INTERVENTION: In 1995, multidisciplinary team working was introduced in hospitals throughout one health board area (Greater Glasgow; intervention area), but not in other health board areas in the west of Scotland (non-intervention area). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer specific mortality and all cause mortality. RESULTS: Before the introduction of multidisciplinary care (analysed time period January 1990 to September 1995), breast cancer mortality was 11% higher in the intervention area than in the non-intervention area (hazard ratio adjusted for year of incidence, age at diagnosis, and deprivation, 1.11; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.20). After multidisciplinary care was introduced (time period October 1995 to December 2000), breast cancer mortality was 18% lower in the intervention area than in the non-intervention area (0.82, 0.74 to 0.91). All cause mortality did not differ significantly between populations in the earlier period, but was 11% lower in the intervention area than in the non-interventional area in the later period (0.89, 0.82 to 0.97). Interrupted time series analyses showed a significant improvement in breast cancer survival in the intervention area in 1996, compared with the expected survival in the same year had the pre-intervention trend continued (P=0.004). This improvement was maintained after the intervention was introduced. CONCLUSION: Introduction of multidisciplinary care was associated with improved survival and reduced variation in survival among hospitals. Further analysis of clinical audit data for multidisciplinary care could identify which aspects of care are most associated with survival benefits.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.e2718

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kesson, E. M., Allardice, G. M., George, W. D., Burns, H. J. G., & Morrison, D. S.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-04-26
Volume
344
Issue
apr26 1
Pages
e2718-e2718
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109529837
Cited by
579
References
1
FWCI
10.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.