Treatment adherence in practice — a neurology plus psychiatry viewpoint

From a workflow perspective, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, with meaningful differences between subgroups. According to consensus recommendations, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Across multiple cohorts, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, although confirmatory data are still limited. When protocols are compared, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, pending validation in prospective studies.

Open questions

Longitudinal data show that variability between operators remains a key limitation, pending validation in prospective studies. In routine practice, threshold harmonization is still an open question, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Across multiple cohorts, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, and this trend is expected to continue.

Longitudinal data show that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, with meaningful differences between subgroups. When protocols are compared, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, pending validation in prospective studies.

Key considerations

Longitudinal data show that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, particularly in resource-constrained settings. In multidisciplinary settings, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, which has direct implications for daily practice. In multidisciplinary settings, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Across multiple cohorts, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, pending validation in prospective studies.