Five questions about treatment adherence every neurology plus psychiatry team should ask

Longitudinal data show that threshold harmonization is still an open question, although confirmatory data are still limited. In routine practice, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, although confirmatory data are still limited. Contrary to earlier assumptions, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, pending validation in prospective studies.

Limitations

Longitudinal data show that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, and this trend is expected to continue. Emerging evidence indicates that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, which has direct implications for daily practice. When protocols are compared, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, and this trend is expected to continue.

In multidisciplinary settings, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, particularly in resource-constrained settings. In multidisciplinary settings, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, pending validation in prospective studies. From a workflow perspective, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

Open questions

When protocols are compared, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, and this trend is expected to continue. Contrary to earlier assumptions, variability between operators remains a key limitation, pending validation in prospective studies. In routine practice, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, particularly in resource-constrained settings. When protocols are compared, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Across multiple cohorts, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, which has direct implications for daily practice. Longitudinal data show that early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In multidisciplinary settings, variability between operators remains a key limitation, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

Takeaways for practice

In routine practice, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, and this trend is expected to continue. When protocols are compared, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, which has direct implications for daily practice. Contrary to earlier assumptions, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, although confirmatory data are still limited.

According to consensus recommendations, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, and this trend is expected to continue. In multidisciplinary settings, variability between operators remains a key limitation, although confirmatory data are still limited. When protocols are compared, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, although confirmatory data are still limited. Emerging evidence indicates that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, a finding echoed by several independent groups.