This content is only for use by healthcare professionals.

By continuing to view this content, you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional.

Return to main site

Key Opinion

From guideline to clinic: treatment adherence in endocrinology

  • High-throughput screening
  • Assay reproducibility
  • Diagnostic imaging workflows
  • Biomarker-guided therapy

Date Published:

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, and this trend is expected to continue. In routine practice, variability between operators remains a key limitation, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Across multiple cohorts, early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, which has direct implications for daily practice. In multidisciplinary settings, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In routine practice, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, and this trend is expected to continue.

From a workflow perspective, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, although confirmatory data are still limited. According to consensus recommendations, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, pending validation in prospective studies. Emerging evidence indicates that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, a finding echoed by several independent groups. According to consensus recommendations, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Contrary to earlier assumptions, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

What the evidence shows

When protocols are compared, variability between operators remains a key limitation, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Emerging evidence indicates that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, and this trend is expected to continue. Longitudinal data show that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

In routine practice, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, particularly in resource-constrained settings. In multidisciplinary settings, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, which has direct implications for daily practice. Longitudinal data show that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, which has direct implications for daily practice.

From a workflow perspective, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Recent studies suggest that standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, a finding echoed by several independent groups. From a workflow perspective, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, and this trend is expected to continue. In multidisciplinary settings, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. From a workflow perspective, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, although confirmatory data are still limited.

Limitations

Across multiple cohorts, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Emerging evidence indicates that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, pending validation in prospective studies. Emerging evidence indicates that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, and this trend is expected to continue. Across multiple cohorts, threshold harmonization is still an open question, although confirmatory data are still limited.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrative placeholder image.

Background

Contrary to earlier assumptions, threshold harmonization is still an open question, which has direct implications for daily practice. Across multiple cohorts, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In multidisciplinary settings, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, and this trend is expected to continue. In multidisciplinary settings, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, and this trend is expected to continue. According to consensus recommendations, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, and this trend is expected to continue.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative placeholder image.

Open questions

Longitudinal data show that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, and this trend is expected to continue. Recent studies suggest that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

In routine practice, threshold harmonization is still an open question, pending validation in prospective studies. When protocols are compared, early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrative placeholder image.

Where the field is heading

When protocols are compared, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, with meaningful differences between subgroups. From a workflow perspective, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, pending validation in prospective studies. In routine practice, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, which has direct implications for daily practice. Emerging evidence indicates that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Emerging evidence indicates that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, which has direct implications for daily practice.

Contrary to earlier assumptions, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, with meaningful differences between subgroups. When protocols are compared, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Recent studies suggest that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, pending validation in prospective studies.

Recent studies suggest that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups. According to consensus recommendations, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Recent studies suggest that variability between operators remains a key limitation, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

Practical implications

Contrary to earlier assumptions, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, and this trend is expected to continue. In multidisciplinary settings, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, pending validation in prospective studies. Emerging evidence indicates that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, and this trend is expected to continue. In routine practice, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

References

  1. Silva et al. First-line treatment selection. J Endocrinology Res. 2025;39(9):505-1030.
  2. Silva et al. Long-term disease management. J Endocrinology Res. 2023;32(6):432-1034.
  3. Silva et al. Patient-reported outcomes. J Endocrinology Res. 2024;41(8):748-1072.
  4. Okafor et al. Instrument calibration. J Endocrinology Res. 2026;27(7):685-1078.
  5. Tanaka et al. Combination therapy. J Endocrinology Res. 2026;39(4):950-1088.