Five questions about long-term disease management every neurology plus psychiatry team should ask

Abstract

Emerging evidence indicates that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, which has direct implications for daily practice. When protocols are compared, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, which has direct implications for daily practice. Recent studies suggest that pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, which has direct implications for daily practice.

In multidisciplinary settings, variability between operators remains a key limitation, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. When protocols are compared, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, a finding echoed by several independent groups. According to consensus recommendations, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

Contrary to earlier assumptions, variability between operators remains a key limitation, and this trend is expected to continue. In multidisciplinary settings, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, although confirmatory data are still limited. Longitudinal data show that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups.