Non-Cochrane · intervention · PMC13657501
Multidisciplinary team management and the survival of head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2026 · PubMed
Findings
5 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with head and neck cancer | Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management | Non-MDT (conventional, single-discipline) management | Overall survival Country: Australia Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | HR 0.79 [0.64, 0.98] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Patients with head and neck cancer | Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management | Non-MDT conventional care | Overall survival Country: United States | HR 0.87 [0.55, 1.37] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients with head and neck cancer | Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management | Non-MDT conventional care | Overall survival Country: Taiwan | HR 0.86 [0.77, 0.96] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients with head and neck cancer | Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management | Non-MDT (conventional, single-discipline) management | Overall survival | HR 0.87 [0.78, 0.97] GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients with stage IV head and neck cancer | Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management | Non-MDT (conventional, single-discipline) management | Overall survival | HR 0.80 [0.62, 1.03] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
Included primary studies 9
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friedland 2011 Impact of multidisciplinary team management in head and neck cancer patients. PMID:21448166 | 2011 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
| Hamilton 2013 Laryngeal cancer management in a small, rural, multidisciplinary team setting: 15-year review. PMID:24290831 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Liao 2016 Association between multidisciplinary team care approach and survival rates in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. PMID:26890807 | 2016 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
| Light 2017 Improving outcomes in veterans with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma through implementation of a multidisciplinary clinic. PMID:28370667 | 2017 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
| Liu 2019 The impact of the multidisciplinary tumor board on head and neck cancer outcomes. PMID:31095740 | 2020 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
| Liu 2020 (Australia) Survival outcomes following modern multidisciplinary management of oral squamous cell carcinoma in Australia. PMID:33187950 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Meltzer 2021 Survival Associated With Consolidated Multidisciplinary Care in Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. PMID:34752163 | 2023 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
| Tsai 2015 Beneficial impact of multidisciplinary team management on the survival in different stages of oral cavity cancer patients: results of a… PMID:25484134 | 2015 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2012 Effects of multidisciplinary care on the survival of patients with oral cavity cancer in Taiwan. PMID:22534006 | 2012 | this review only | Overall survival | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Human patients with head and neck cancer | Head and neck cancer patients (n=42,937; 9 studies); stage IV subgroup (3 studies) |
| Intervention | MDT management | MDT care (clinic, tumor board, national MDT policy) |
| Comparison | Conventional non-MDT, single-discipline management | Non-MDT care |
| Outcomes | Overall survival | Overall survival (HR) |
| Study designs | Published studies in English; excluded abstracts, reviews, editorials | Retrospective cohort studies (n=9) |
| Timing | Not specified | Recruitment 1996-2017 |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | No | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Partial Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |