Case-based review of method validation in endocrinology

About this Webinar

From a workflow perspective, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Recent studies suggest that threshold harmonization is still an open question, pending validation in prospective studies. Recent studies suggest that threshold harmonization is still an open question, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Emerging evidence indicates that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, which has direct implications for daily practice. When protocols are compared, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

In routine practice, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, which has direct implications for daily practice. Longitudinal data show that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, which has direct implications for daily practice. From a workflow perspective, variability between operators remains a key limitation, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Across multiple cohorts, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.