This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
(←) WP:AGF on the first part... Second part, yeah, back to the task at hand... I can't honestly say that many people know any of the theories by name. I've never even heard of Hunter/Farmer theory, but I have heard the "it's just bad parenting" (social construct) theory. By name, neither one.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed this sentence: "A diagnosis of ADHD may offer adults insight into their behaviors and allow patients to become more aware and seek help with coping and treatment strategies. [1]" This is just speculation and the reference is to a website. The link to the website goes nowhere.-- Franklinjefferson ( talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Pharmacist is a monthly journal dedicated to providing the nation's pharmacists with up-to-date, authoritative, peer-reviewed clinical articles relevant to contemporary pharmacy practice in a variety of settings, including community pharmacy, hospitals, managed care systems, ambulatory care clinics, home care organizations, long-term care facilities, industry and academia. The publication is also useful to pharmacy technicians, students, other health professionals and individuals interested in health management. Pharmacists licensed in the United States can earn Continuing Education credits through U.S. Pharmacist. Jobson is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) as a provider of continuing pharmaceutical education.
(←)exactly. One, this is a reliable source, and two, that sentence makes absolute logical sense...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I understand your viewpoint. I think it is a matter of how conscientious you want to be as an editor and what you consider an appropriate reference. In my view the only appropriate reference for a statement that is presented as a scientific fact is a reference to the peer-reviewed publication where the findings were originally published. If this was followed consistently it would improve the quality of scholarship in Wikipedia. However, I understand that some might not feel the need to maintain this standard. -- Franklinjefferson ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
when I added this article to the Dyslexia category that was because ADHD anhd dyalexia can share some common medical issues see "Symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention can mediate deficits of postural stability in developmental dyslexia" Kim S. H. Rochelle, Caroline Witton and Joel B. Talcott1 School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK http://www.springerlink.com/content/yl41483583810w70/ or doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1568-5
I was not inferring that ADHD was a form of dyslexia, but that there areas of symptom overlap
You can also see the WIKI dyslexia category page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dyslexia
dolfrog ( talk) 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) editing WIKI Dyslexia article
I'm trying to improve this article in general. If Scuro's tags can possibly help, then let him place them. If they break the bounds of common sense (i.e. complete article rewrite, needs consensus, ect.) they may be removed at will. I'm betting that this may help. If not, then, blame me, as that would be my fault for even offering this.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The reference for this sentence: "Using magnetic resonance imaging of the prefrontal cortex, this developmental lag has been estimated to range from 3 to 5 years." is from a discussion on a website, not from a scientific journal. As a non-peer reviewed source it really has no credibility beyond that of the person that wrote the article. Unless there is a peer-reviewed scientific reference supplied this statement should be removed. -- Franklinjefferson ( talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Sifaka
talk 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Franklin instead of trying to tell other users to track down the original medical paper, how about you locate it and add it to the article?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No objections from me Sifaka.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what happened to ADD?? Have i been liveing under a rock since i was diagnosed or did it just dissapear?? Theres no such mention of ADD that i can find on wiki (although i just skimmed around\0 There is only one metion of ADD at all on wiki and that is one sentence. Shouldnt there be an ADD section of this page at least or a page of its on? can anyone enlighten me on this subject?
130.123.128.114 (
talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please if you disagree find a reference to back up what you say. ADD is the old term ADHD is the new term. Both terms are from the APA.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting a cleanup tag on the controversies subsection for the following reasons:
1. This section needs copyediting for tone and flow. It reads choppily and awkwardly.
2. Some statments needs to be clarified. As an example, "One source of controversy is that the pathophysiology of ADHD is currently unclear." Who is it a controversy for? For anti-psychiatrists and the like, they argue that because there currently no definitive pathophysiology, ADHD doesn't exist. For the researchers in the field there is no question that there is a pathophysiology, but there are probably competing ideas on the precise identity of it.
3. Currently the section contradicts some of information in the main article
ADHD controversies
4. Some aspects of ADHD controversy which have substantial page-time on the main controversies page are totally ignored here. These include impact of labeling and politics and the media. A mention for both could be worked in. Sifaka talk 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you not write something with references to the literature that you think is better / more balanced than what we have. Post it here and we can then discuss these proposed changes?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK so can someone tell me after checking out citation 102 and 103 (which are identical) which states in the conclusion "There is no published evidence to suggest that either the short or long term treatment with methylphenidate increases the risk of developing seizures in children with ADHD."
can be reconciled with...
"Some forms of epilepsy can also cause ADHD like behaviour which can be misdiagnosed as ADHD"
The citation is regarding the drugs to treat ADHD and the correlation b/w the 2, not a diagnosis.
josst10 ( talk) 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the full citation? I don't see what you are trying to say. I recall reading that citation and it did mention that epilepsy can causes ADHD like symptoms which can be misdiagnosed.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"In the first decade of the 2000s, ADHD diagnoses have increased dramatically in the United States, prompting some scholars from various fields to question the scientific validity of this relatively recent childhood disorder".[14]
Didn't the dramatic increase of the diagnosis of ADHD occur in the 90's? The use of "some" creates an undue weight issue in this sentence. Who are these scholars? Are they majority, minority, or fringe? That's kinda of important for the lede paragraph, don't ya think? The Journal of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry is also of questionable standards. It has no wiki entry and was founded by Peter Breggin. I could be wrong but I don't believe it is viewed as a scholarly journal. An article from this journal is used as the citation for the sentence. Anyone have input here on who put that sentence in and if it should be removed from the page?-- scuro ( talk) 04:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the source down to the controversies section scuro. There has been an increase both in the 90's and 2000's. It is not a review article. I have no idea who added that citation or sentence to the lede.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of links that don't belong there. Are there guidelines for this section?-- scuro ( talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes it does say that, " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Sections", Doc James is right, the guideline does recommend avoiding them if possible. I retract what I said about wrong guideline being cited, I was just looking at what it said about external links, appologies.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-It would be my opinion that the literature states that once you have a diagnosis of ADHD, a significant amount of this population would suffer some form of long term impairment. I'm not negating that the fact that a percentage of this population no longer appears to have ADHD as they grow older, nor that a significant percentage of this population finds coping mechanisms. The second paragraph in this section would attest to longer term impairment, and that sort of conclusion should open the paragraph.
-the last sentence doesn't belong in this section, perhaps it belongs in the management section?-- scuro ( talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Came across and excellent comment on how one deals with POV. I hope LjL does not mind but I think it provides go advice here:
Yeah, the answer is " so fix it", and, no, you won't get reverted if you just follow the long and proven tradition of not removing content but instead adding other content that offsets the "POV" with another (putting "POV" in scare quotes since I doubt it's strictly a matter of POV here, but the concept still applies).
When I first came across this page I found that it did not represent a significant POV ( ie. the fact that some find this condition controversial ). I added a POV and balanced the previous POV rather than removing content. If people feel that the benefits of treatment or the harms of the condition are not adequately mentioned then please as stated above fix it.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing the article there seems to be a lot points made based on a single piece of primary research. As I understand it this information is to be used sparingly after majority and minority have been stated. The danger in only using a PS is that OR may happen.-- scuro ( talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to be adding some content from the book: Dr Jennifer Erkulwater; Dr Rick Mayes; Dr Catherine Bagwell (2009). Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 5.
ISBN
0-674-03163-6.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
To give people a bit of an overview it has been reviewed by Russell Barkley, and many others see page vii
The author Rick Mayes is a public policy analyst and former NIMH postdoctoral fellow specializing in health care policy and mental health
Catherine Bagwell is a trained child clinical psychologist and has worked in clinics with children with ADHD.
Jennifer Erkulwater is a political scientist whose research focuses on disability, education, and social welfare policy. see page. 10
The book has over 120 pages of references. It looks at the social and cultural phenomina that has lead to the rise of ADHD from being a mostly unheard of disorder 50 years ago to being one of the most come in the USA today.--
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Here it recommends that we keep the image size at the default: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images#Forced_image_size A image of a brain can be clicked on if more detail is desired.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
To keep all uptodate here are the links to were further arbitration is taking place:
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Wondering were people think this paper should noted? "This case-control study provides support for an association between the use of stimulants and sudden unexplained death among children and adolescents."[ [5]] The FDA recommends caution WRT the result which should be commented on as well.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the FDA has mandated stimulants have a black box warning for sudden death so I don't see why not.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Vannin has a point, article is on ADHD. I think Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management and perhaps also stimulants article are more relevant.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A question is asked at this article's talk page which I cannot answer. Just a heads up. - Hordaland ( talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#Culture is difficult to follow. What do "The core impairments are expressed in different cultural contexts" and "ADHD is considered differently based" mean. Who are "they?" I am adding some inline tags requesting clarification. Sifaka talk 01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"Culture," "Perception of ADHD," "ADHD in society," "ADHD in popular discourse," "ADHD in society," and "Popular culture" were suggested above. I just happened to be over at NPOVnoticeboard and saw this suggestion in another context: "Societal views." I like it. Perhaps it could be its own section, instead of looking to be a part of "History." Alternatively the content could be considered history. Leaning toward "Societal views." - Hordaland ( talk) 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ Deadlocked}} It would be my opinion that none of the alternative theories would have real acceptance in the Scientific and Medical communities as causes of ADHD. The low arousal theory speaks to a symptom. Diet as a direct cause of ADHD would also not have acceptance in those communities. This creates undue weight issues. As a solution, may I suggest that his material be moved from the causes section. It could be moved to the culture section because it is society which believes many of these things. I'm open to other ideas.-- scuro ( talk) 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have provided evidence on the controveries page that this is one of the majority opinions in the general population. This is a general encyclopedia therefore needs to address the topic in a manner that deals with the questions of a general audience. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
All these theories are supported to some degree by people within the feild. Look at the references to the different theories. There have been attempts to make these ideas sound completely unsupported but this is not the cause.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) --
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)In the past decade, scientific research has focused on strengthening the first position, with an emphasis on identifying primary genetic causes of ADHD4. More-recent evidence, however, suggests that complex psychiatric disorders are mediated by a combination of genetic and environmental factors4, 12, 13. Scientific research into the complex and potentially multiple aetiologies of ADHD is still in early stages14; however, it is attracting a lot of attention as ADHD becomes a global phenomenon: in the past decade rates of diagnosis have increased sharply in most countries around the world15. These increases are linked to parallel growth in the consumption of stimulant medications16. A better scientific understanding of the aetiology of ADHD might clarify whether the growing number of school-age children that are being diagnosed with ADHD and taking stimulant drugs represents over-diagnosis and overuse of stimulant treatments or an actual increase in ADHD prevalence4, 17.
Growing scientific evidence suggests that ADHD cannot be explained by genetic or environmental factors alone. Research that integrates social and scientific perspectives is likely to achieve a more complete explanation. This article reviews the scientific and social debates over ADHD and identifies key areas in which social investigations should be integrated with scientific research to generate richer models of the causes of ADHD and better understanding of the validity of the diagnosis.
Most importantly, this page is a part of the WikiProject Medicine, under the subproject of Neurology, as well as the project of Psychology. Neurology and Psychology are subsets of Medical Science. Thus this page is in fact filed, on this encyclopedia, under a scientific project heading. Thus questions of philosophical, social, or political importance really do need to take a back seat. Look, HIV has fairly significant social and political issues attached to it, but in general one would expect an article on that particular subject to focus more on the scientific research and medical aspects of that disease, right? I mean, if I pull up the wiki article on HIV, I'd expect to see lots of information on retroviruses, T-cells, reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, etc. I wouldn't particularly want to read about people postulating that HIV is some divine retribution for homosexual sex or whatever other kooky social and political statements people might wish to make just to prove some ridiculous point. Sure, make a note that there are people out there who believe that, along with something to indicate that this is a fringe opinion, and maybe include a link to a page that goes more in depth on it.
But seriously...philosophical, social, and political questions really aren't relevant to the scope of an article on a Medical topic. More importantly, philosophical, social, and political arguments are rather irrelevant and invalid with regards to scientific questions.
Now, if one wanted to discuss this in a scientific fashion, then by all means, there are ways to do that. For example, if one wished to question whether ADHD medications were overprescribed, then the scientific method for answering that question might be to look at data on prescription patterns for these medications. What percentage of individuals in various age groups are currently prescribed medication for ADHD. Then one might check studies that estimate the prevalence of ADHD in society. Then one could ask how these two percentages compare. If these drugs are being prescribed at a rate higher than might be expected by the prevalence data....in other words, if there were more people taking these medications in a given age group compared to the number we might expect based upon prevalence estimates, then this would be evidence of possible overprescribing.
However, what we see is that the prescription rate is actually slightly below the estimated prevalence rate. What does this mean? It implies that it is unlikely that ADHD medications are being overprescribed.....or that if there are cases of overprescription, then there would also have to be a significant amount of underprescription to match.
Regardless, this is how one would approach this from a scientific standpoint. Instead of attempting to make a philosophical, social, or political point, all of which are inherently subjective, it is essential to examine the scientific evidence and formulate and test various hypotheses. Hyperion35 ( talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
(←) WP:AGF on the first part... Second part, yeah, back to the task at hand... I can't honestly say that many people know any of the theories by name. I've never even heard of Hunter/Farmer theory, but I have heard the "it's just bad parenting" (social construct) theory. By name, neither one.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed this sentence: "A diagnosis of ADHD may offer adults insight into their behaviors and allow patients to become more aware and seek help with coping and treatment strategies. [1]" This is just speculation and the reference is to a website. The link to the website goes nowhere.-- Franklinjefferson ( talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Pharmacist is a monthly journal dedicated to providing the nation's pharmacists with up-to-date, authoritative, peer-reviewed clinical articles relevant to contemporary pharmacy practice in a variety of settings, including community pharmacy, hospitals, managed care systems, ambulatory care clinics, home care organizations, long-term care facilities, industry and academia. The publication is also useful to pharmacy technicians, students, other health professionals and individuals interested in health management. Pharmacists licensed in the United States can earn Continuing Education credits through U.S. Pharmacist. Jobson is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) as a provider of continuing pharmaceutical education.
(←)exactly. One, this is a reliable source, and two, that sentence makes absolute logical sense...-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I understand your viewpoint. I think it is a matter of how conscientious you want to be as an editor and what you consider an appropriate reference. In my view the only appropriate reference for a statement that is presented as a scientific fact is a reference to the peer-reviewed publication where the findings were originally published. If this was followed consistently it would improve the quality of scholarship in Wikipedia. However, I understand that some might not feel the need to maintain this standard. -- Franklinjefferson ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
when I added this article to the Dyslexia category that was because ADHD anhd dyalexia can share some common medical issues see "Symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention can mediate deficits of postural stability in developmental dyslexia" Kim S. H. Rochelle, Caroline Witton and Joel B. Talcott1 School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK http://www.springerlink.com/content/yl41483583810w70/ or doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1568-5
I was not inferring that ADHD was a form of dyslexia, but that there areas of symptom overlap
You can also see the WIKI dyslexia category page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dyslexia
dolfrog ( talk) 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) editing WIKI Dyslexia article
I'm trying to improve this article in general. If Scuro's tags can possibly help, then let him place them. If they break the bounds of common sense (i.e. complete article rewrite, needs consensus, ect.) they may be removed at will. I'm betting that this may help. If not, then, blame me, as that would be my fault for even offering this.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The reference for this sentence: "Using magnetic resonance imaging of the prefrontal cortex, this developmental lag has been estimated to range from 3 to 5 years." is from a discussion on a website, not from a scientific journal. As a non-peer reviewed source it really has no credibility beyond that of the person that wrote the article. Unless there is a peer-reviewed scientific reference supplied this statement should be removed. -- Franklinjefferson ( talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Sifaka
talk 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Franklin instead of trying to tell other users to track down the original medical paper, how about you locate it and add it to the article?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No objections from me Sifaka.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what happened to ADD?? Have i been liveing under a rock since i was diagnosed or did it just dissapear?? Theres no such mention of ADD that i can find on wiki (although i just skimmed around\0 There is only one metion of ADD at all on wiki and that is one sentence. Shouldnt there be an ADD section of this page at least or a page of its on? can anyone enlighten me on this subject?
130.123.128.114 (
talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please if you disagree find a reference to back up what you say. ADD is the old term ADHD is the new term. Both terms are from the APA.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting a cleanup tag on the controversies subsection for the following reasons:
1. This section needs copyediting for tone and flow. It reads choppily and awkwardly.
2. Some statments needs to be clarified. As an example, "One source of controversy is that the pathophysiology of ADHD is currently unclear." Who is it a controversy for? For anti-psychiatrists and the like, they argue that because there currently no definitive pathophysiology, ADHD doesn't exist. For the researchers in the field there is no question that there is a pathophysiology, but there are probably competing ideas on the precise identity of it.
3. Currently the section contradicts some of information in the main article
ADHD controversies
4. Some aspects of ADHD controversy which have substantial page-time on the main controversies page are totally ignored here. These include impact of labeling and politics and the media. A mention for both could be worked in. Sifaka talk 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you not write something with references to the literature that you think is better / more balanced than what we have. Post it here and we can then discuss these proposed changes?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK so can someone tell me after checking out citation 102 and 103 (which are identical) which states in the conclusion "There is no published evidence to suggest that either the short or long term treatment with methylphenidate increases the risk of developing seizures in children with ADHD."
can be reconciled with...
"Some forms of epilepsy can also cause ADHD like behaviour which can be misdiagnosed as ADHD"
The citation is regarding the drugs to treat ADHD and the correlation b/w the 2, not a diagnosis.
josst10 ( talk) 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the full citation? I don't see what you are trying to say. I recall reading that citation and it did mention that epilepsy can causes ADHD like symptoms which can be misdiagnosed.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"In the first decade of the 2000s, ADHD diagnoses have increased dramatically in the United States, prompting some scholars from various fields to question the scientific validity of this relatively recent childhood disorder".[14]
Didn't the dramatic increase of the diagnosis of ADHD occur in the 90's? The use of "some" creates an undue weight issue in this sentence. Who are these scholars? Are they majority, minority, or fringe? That's kinda of important for the lede paragraph, don't ya think? The Journal of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry is also of questionable standards. It has no wiki entry and was founded by Peter Breggin. I could be wrong but I don't believe it is viewed as a scholarly journal. An article from this journal is used as the citation for the sentence. Anyone have input here on who put that sentence in and if it should be removed from the page?-- scuro ( talk) 04:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the source down to the controversies section scuro. There has been an increase both in the 90's and 2000's. It is not a review article. I have no idea who added that citation or sentence to the lede.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of links that don't belong there. Are there guidelines for this section?-- scuro ( talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes it does say that, " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Sections", Doc James is right, the guideline does recommend avoiding them if possible. I retract what I said about wrong guideline being cited, I was just looking at what it said about external links, appologies.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-It would be my opinion that the literature states that once you have a diagnosis of ADHD, a significant amount of this population would suffer some form of long term impairment. I'm not negating that the fact that a percentage of this population no longer appears to have ADHD as they grow older, nor that a significant percentage of this population finds coping mechanisms. The second paragraph in this section would attest to longer term impairment, and that sort of conclusion should open the paragraph.
-the last sentence doesn't belong in this section, perhaps it belongs in the management section?-- scuro ( talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Came across and excellent comment on how one deals with POV. I hope LjL does not mind but I think it provides go advice here:
Yeah, the answer is " so fix it", and, no, you won't get reverted if you just follow the long and proven tradition of not removing content but instead adding other content that offsets the "POV" with another (putting "POV" in scare quotes since I doubt it's strictly a matter of POV here, but the concept still applies).
When I first came across this page I found that it did not represent a significant POV ( ie. the fact that some find this condition controversial ). I added a POV and balanced the previous POV rather than removing content. If people feel that the benefits of treatment or the harms of the condition are not adequately mentioned then please as stated above fix it.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing the article there seems to be a lot points made based on a single piece of primary research. As I understand it this information is to be used sparingly after majority and minority have been stated. The danger in only using a PS is that OR may happen.-- scuro ( talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to be adding some content from the book: Dr Jennifer Erkulwater; Dr Rick Mayes; Dr Catherine Bagwell (2009). Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 5.
ISBN
0-674-03163-6.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
To give people a bit of an overview it has been reviewed by Russell Barkley, and many others see page vii
The author Rick Mayes is a public policy analyst and former NIMH postdoctoral fellow specializing in health care policy and mental health
Catherine Bagwell is a trained child clinical psychologist and has worked in clinics with children with ADHD.
Jennifer Erkulwater is a political scientist whose research focuses on disability, education, and social welfare policy. see page. 10
The book has over 120 pages of references. It looks at the social and cultural phenomina that has lead to the rise of ADHD from being a mostly unheard of disorder 50 years ago to being one of the most come in the USA today.--
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Here it recommends that we keep the image size at the default: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images#Forced_image_size A image of a brain can be clicked on if more detail is desired.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
To keep all uptodate here are the links to were further arbitration is taking place:
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Wondering were people think this paper should noted? "This case-control study provides support for an association between the use of stimulants and sudden unexplained death among children and adolescents."[ [5]] The FDA recommends caution WRT the result which should be commented on as well.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the FDA has mandated stimulants have a black box warning for sudden death so I don't see why not.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Vannin has a point, article is on ADHD. I think Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management and perhaps also stimulants article are more relevant.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A question is asked at this article's talk page which I cannot answer. Just a heads up. - Hordaland ( talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#Culture is difficult to follow. What do "The core impairments are expressed in different cultural contexts" and "ADHD is considered differently based" mean. Who are "they?" I am adding some inline tags requesting clarification. Sifaka talk 01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"Culture," "Perception of ADHD," "ADHD in society," "ADHD in popular discourse," "ADHD in society," and "Popular culture" were suggested above. I just happened to be over at NPOVnoticeboard and saw this suggestion in another context: "Societal views." I like it. Perhaps it could be its own section, instead of looking to be a part of "History." Alternatively the content could be considered history. Leaning toward "Societal views." - Hordaland ( talk) 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ Deadlocked}} It would be my opinion that none of the alternative theories would have real acceptance in the Scientific and Medical communities as causes of ADHD. The low arousal theory speaks to a symptom. Diet as a direct cause of ADHD would also not have acceptance in those communities. This creates undue weight issues. As a solution, may I suggest that his material be moved from the causes section. It could be moved to the culture section because it is society which believes many of these things. I'm open to other ideas.-- scuro ( talk) 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have provided evidence on the controveries page that this is one of the majority opinions in the general population. This is a general encyclopedia therefore needs to address the topic in a manner that deals with the questions of a general audience. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
All these theories are supported to some degree by people within the feild. Look at the references to the different theories. There have been attempts to make these ideas sound completely unsupported but this is not the cause.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) --
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)In the past decade, scientific research has focused on strengthening the first position, with an emphasis on identifying primary genetic causes of ADHD4. More-recent evidence, however, suggests that complex psychiatric disorders are mediated by a combination of genetic and environmental factors4, 12, 13. Scientific research into the complex and potentially multiple aetiologies of ADHD is still in early stages14; however, it is attracting a lot of attention as ADHD becomes a global phenomenon: in the past decade rates of diagnosis have increased sharply in most countries around the world15. These increases are linked to parallel growth in the consumption of stimulant medications16. A better scientific understanding of the aetiology of ADHD might clarify whether the growing number of school-age children that are being diagnosed with ADHD and taking stimulant drugs represents over-diagnosis and overuse of stimulant treatments or an actual increase in ADHD prevalence4, 17.
Growing scientific evidence suggests that ADHD cannot be explained by genetic or environmental factors alone. Research that integrates social and scientific perspectives is likely to achieve a more complete explanation. This article reviews the scientific and social debates over ADHD and identifies key areas in which social investigations should be integrated with scientific research to generate richer models of the causes of ADHD and better understanding of the validity of the diagnosis.
Most importantly, this page is a part of the WikiProject Medicine, under the subproject of Neurology, as well as the project of Psychology. Neurology and Psychology are subsets of Medical Science. Thus this page is in fact filed, on this encyclopedia, under a scientific project heading. Thus questions of philosophical, social, or political importance really do need to take a back seat. Look, HIV has fairly significant social and political issues attached to it, but in general one would expect an article on that particular subject to focus more on the scientific research and medical aspects of that disease, right? I mean, if I pull up the wiki article on HIV, I'd expect to see lots of information on retroviruses, T-cells, reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, etc. I wouldn't particularly want to read about people postulating that HIV is some divine retribution for homosexual sex or whatever other kooky social and political statements people might wish to make just to prove some ridiculous point. Sure, make a note that there are people out there who believe that, along with something to indicate that this is a fringe opinion, and maybe include a link to a page that goes more in depth on it.
But seriously...philosophical, social, and political questions really aren't relevant to the scope of an article on a Medical topic. More importantly, philosophical, social, and political arguments are rather irrelevant and invalid with regards to scientific questions.
Now, if one wanted to discuss this in a scientific fashion, then by all means, there are ways to do that. For example, if one wished to question whether ADHD medications were overprescribed, then the scientific method for answering that question might be to look at data on prescription patterns for these medications. What percentage of individuals in various age groups are currently prescribed medication for ADHD. Then one might check studies that estimate the prevalence of ADHD in society. Then one could ask how these two percentages compare. If these drugs are being prescribed at a rate higher than might be expected by the prevalence data....in other words, if there were more people taking these medications in a given age group compared to the number we might expect based upon prevalence estimates, then this would be evidence of possible overprescribing.
However, what we see is that the prescription rate is actually slightly below the estimated prevalence rate. What does this mean? It implies that it is unlikely that ADHD medications are being overprescribed.....or that if there are cases of overprescription, then there would also have to be a significant amount of underprescription to match.
Regardless, this is how one would approach this from a scientific standpoint. Instead of attempting to make a philosophical, social, or political point, all of which are inherently subjective, it is essential to examine the scientific evidence and formulate and test various hypotheses. Hyperion35 ( talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)