At a glance: biomarker-guided therapy in endocrinology

About this Infographic

Recent studies suggest that standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Longitudinal data show that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, which has direct implications for daily practice.

Contrary to earlier assumptions, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, with meaningful differences between subgroups. When protocols are compared, threshold harmonization is still an open question, although confirmatory data are still limited. Across multiple cohorts, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, a finding echoed by several independent groups. When protocols are compared, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, with meaningful differences between subgroups. In multidisciplinary settings, variability between operators remains a key limitation, which has direct implications for daily practice.

From a workflow perspective, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Across multiple cohorts, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

Recent studies suggest that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, which has direct implications for daily practice. According to consensus recommendations, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, and this trend is expected to continue. Longitudinal data show that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. From a workflow perspective, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, a finding echoed by several independent groups.