ReviewEndocrine2026
Can long-acting growth hormone improve adherence in pediatric growth hormone deficiency?
Review in Endocrine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in childhood and adolescence requires long-term therapy with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH). Although daily injections are highly effective, they impose a considerable treatment burden that often leads to suboptimal adherence and compromised growth outcomes. Reported non-adherence rates vary widely, largely due to heterogeneous definitions and assessment methods. Adherence is influenced by multiple factors, including device usability, psychosocial context, family engagement, and the level of support from health care professionals. Although Long-Acting Growth Hormone (LAGH) preparations, administered once weekly, have demonstrated efficacy and safety comparable to daily rhGH in clinical trials, adherence in these settings may be overestimated. The key question now is whether LAGH can truly enhance treatment adherence in real-world settings. This narrative review summarizes the very limited data currently available on adherence to LAGH in both treatment-naïve patients and those switching from daily rhGH, highlighting methodological heterogeneity and the absence of robust long-term outcomes. Rather than providing definitive conclusions, our aim is to map existing evidence, identify critical gaps, and outline priorities for future real-world and longitudinal studies evaluating adherence, persistence, and clinical consequences of poor adherence in LAGH users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.