BMJ open · 2026
Lung cancer multidisciplinary care status and evidence-practice gap: a scoping review protocol.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Yunfeng, Liu Zhaofei, Han Renjian, Zhang Yuliu, Sun Ronggui, Wei Junping, Fu Xinhao, Han Maomao, Lu Yue, Hu Xia, Ouyang Changhe, Xu Dong Roman, Han Kongqi, Wang Run
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with substantial variations in incidence, stage at diagnosis and outcomes across regions. High-quality, standardised diagnosis and treatment are essential to improving survival and quality of life. Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is a cornerstone of cancer care; however, its implementation faces barriers such as limited resources, uneven policy support and inequitable access to specialised care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. To date, no global scoping review has systematically mapped lung cancer MDC-covering implementation models, facilitators, barriers, policy frameworks, technology integration and evidence gaps. This review seeks to fill that gap and inform the optimisation of MDC models.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework, underpinned by the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues, will be used for this scoping review. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will perform a comprehensive search of six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI, VIP and WanFang) and grey literature sources (ClinicalTrials.gov). In addition, we will screen the reference lists of included studies for further relevant publications. Two review authors will independently conduct the screening and data extraction processes; discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or discussion with a third review author. Findings will be presented graphically and tabularly, together with a narrative description.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will collect all data from published and grey literature, meaning ethical approval is not necessary. To disseminate our findings, we plan to use diverse means, such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting at academic conferences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MVSPH.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework, underpinned by the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues, will be used for this scoping review. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will perform a comprehensive search of six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI, VIP and WanFang) and grey literature sources (ClinicalTrials.gov). In addition, we will screen the reference lists of included studies for further relevant publications. Two review authors will independently conduct the screening and data extraction processes; discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or discussion with a third review author. Findings will be presented graphically and tabularly, together with a narrative description.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will collect all data from published and grey literature, meaning ethical approval is not necessary. To disseminate our findings, we plan to use diverse means, such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting at academic conferences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MVSPH.