Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis is regarded as the diagnostic reference standard for interstitial lung disease (ILD). Several studies have reported that MDT diagnosis is associated with higher levels of diagnostic confidence and better interobserver agreement when compared to the individual c...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Simon L.F. Walsh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: European Respiratory Society 2017-05-01
Series:European Respiratory Review
Online Access:http://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/144/170002.full
id doaj-4c8c56f2f9a64868949edf7093e9c1fd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4c8c56f2f9a64868949edf7093e9c1fd2020-11-25T00:57:27ZengEuropean Respiratory SocietyEuropean Respiratory Review0905-91801600-06172017-05-012614410.1183/16000617.0002-20170002-2017Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insightsSimon L.F. Walsh0 King's College Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK Multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis is regarded as the diagnostic reference standard for interstitial lung disease (ILD). Several studies have reported that MDT diagnosis is associated with higher levels of diagnostic confidence and better interobserver agreement when compared to the individual components of the MDT in isolation. Although this recommendation is widely accepted, no guideline statement specifies what constitutes an MDT meeting and how its participants should govern it. Furthermore, the precise role of an MDT meeting in the setting of ILD may vary from one group to another. For example, in some cases, the meeting will confine its discussion to characterising the disease and formulating diagnosis. In others, management decisions may also be part of the discussion. Surprisingly, there is no consensus on how MDT diagnosis is validated. As multidisciplinary evaluation contains all the available clinical information on an individual patient, there is no reference standard against which the veracity of MDT diagnosis can be tested. Finally, many of these uncertainties surrounding MDT meeting practice are unlikely to be answered by traditional evidence-based studies, which create difficulties when generating guideline recommendations. There is clearly a need for expert consensus on what constitutes acceptable MDT meeting practice. This consensus will need to be flexible to accommodate the variability in resources available to fledgling MDT groups and the variable nature of patients requiring discussion.http://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/144/170002.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Simon L.F. Walsh
spellingShingle Simon L.F. Walsh
Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
European Respiratory Review
author_facet Simon L.F. Walsh
author_sort Simon L.F. Walsh
title Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
title_short Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
title_full Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
title_fullStr Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
title_full_unstemmed Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
title_sort multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights
publisher European Respiratory Society
series European Respiratory Review
issn 0905-9180
1600-0617
publishDate 2017-05-01
description Multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis is regarded as the diagnostic reference standard for interstitial lung disease (ILD). Several studies have reported that MDT diagnosis is associated with higher levels of diagnostic confidence and better interobserver agreement when compared to the individual components of the MDT in isolation. Although this recommendation is widely accepted, no guideline statement specifies what constitutes an MDT meeting and how its participants should govern it. Furthermore, the precise role of an MDT meeting in the setting of ILD may vary from one group to another. For example, in some cases, the meeting will confine its discussion to characterising the disease and formulating diagnosis. In others, management decisions may also be part of the discussion. Surprisingly, there is no consensus on how MDT diagnosis is validated. As multidisciplinary evaluation contains all the available clinical information on an individual patient, there is no reference standard against which the veracity of MDT diagnosis can be tested. Finally, many of these uncertainties surrounding MDT meeting practice are unlikely to be answered by traditional evidence-based studies, which create difficulties when generating guideline recommendations. There is clearly a need for expert consensus on what constitutes acceptable MDT meeting practice. This consensus will need to be flexible to accommodate the variability in resources available to fledgling MDT groups and the variable nature of patients requiring discussion.
url http://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/144/170002.full
work_keys_str_mv AT simonlfwalsh multidisciplinaryevaluationofinterstitiallungdiseasescurrentinsights
_version_ 1725224177704632320