Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41800816›Full record

ReviewEndocrine connections2026

Assessment of the 5-year evaluation for 1st call members of the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN).

Emily K White, Tessa de Bruin, Olaf Hiort, Dirk Jan Stenvers, Alberto M Pereira

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endocrine connections, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emily K WhiteDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5669-5388
Tessa de BruinDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Olaf HiortEuropean Reference Network On Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7490-4983
Dirk Jan StenversDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9519-5140
Alberto M PereiraDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The European Reference Networks on Rare Endocrine Diseases (Endo-ERN) and member healthcare providers (HCPs) both are mandated to undergo periodical evaluation of their performance every 5 years. This evaluation is to ensure the continued high standards of ERN HCPs and gauges network progress. The first 5-year evaluation took place in 2022 for healthcare providers that joined Endo-ERN as full members in 2017. As the first implementation of this methodology, it must be reviewed and refined before the next 5-year evaluation. Aim: To investigate how the evaluation process could have impacted the changes in scores beyond merit of the HCP. Methods: This mixed-methods retrospective study and content analysis (CA) was used to examine the self-evaluation results from HCPs, comparing the draft and final scores earned. Results: Fifty-eight HCPs that were subjected to the 5-year evaluation were included, with 14 receiving on-site audit. Final scores of HCPs who received an on-site audit were significantly higher than draft scores in only one area, concerning 'quality and safety' (W = 105, P < 0.0001). CA found five different concepts potentially causing this difference. HCPs with on-site audit commented 'No evidence is provided' online frequently. In follow-up, 61% of HCPs who received the on-site audit felt the on-site visit added value; however, in parallel, 55% felt that the on-site audit is not necessary. Conclusions: An on-site audit has some added value for evaluation activities; however, it can place unnecessary burden on healthcare professionals in the current structure. This study now provides five key recommendations to improve the next ERN 5-year evaluation.

Indexed as

care qualityEndo-ERNevaluationexpert centrerare

Identifiers

PMID41800816
PMCPMC13052768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.