ReviewJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
The role of multidisciplinary team meetings in the management of spinal tumors.
Review in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) are increasingly central to spinal oncology, where complex decision-making must balance neurological, oncological, biomechanical, and systemic factors. This review aims to analyze the structure, clinical value, limitations, and future directions of MDMs in the management of spinal tumors. Narrative review of the literature on MDMs in spinal oncology, focusing on their impact on diagnosis, treatment planning, surgical coordination, and longitudinal care. Articles were selected from PubMed and Google Scholar databases and supplemented with international consensus documents and high-level evidence on decision frameworks. MDMs improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce unnecessary surgeries, and enhance treatment sequencing and outcome, especially in cases of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Structured frameworks facilitate individualized decisions based on shared parameters. However, variability persists in access, role participation, and documentation practices. Emerging technologies may improve triage and equity, while standardized prognostic models support better outcome prediction. MDMs represent a critical element of modern spine tumor care but require standardization, institutional support, and integration of patient-centered tools. Future models should prioritize continuity across the disease course, equitable access, and the use of structured clinical frameworks to support data-driven and ethically grounded decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.