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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 28 |
Having quickly scoped the article after seeing it listed as a 'Good Article' nominee: it seems heavily biased towards the Pharma Industry's point of view. There's no inherent problem with moving "Controversy" to a side article. But most of the claims retained at this page are still controversial! They reflect the view of one particular side of the "controversy". Take this list of "Causes" for example. Am I the only one flabbergasted that classrooms and workplaces are not listed among possible causes of "attention deficit" problems? Another section mentions sociologists who describe "ADHD" as medicalization of deviant behavior; the following sentence counters that: "Most healthcare providers in U.S. accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder..." What does "genuine disorder" even mean? (Isn't deviance explicitly part of the DSM definition of a disorder?) The term also appears in the lead. The first source cited says that ADHD is generally recognized to "exist". Helpful? This article reads like sophisticated advertising for legal stimulants. groupuscule ( talk) 06:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the point of having this section in the article. The article is on ADHD. Facts of medications should be mentioned if they are important to understand the disease. However, the legal status of the medication, while very relevant for the articles on the medications does not really fit in an article on the disease, as it does not help to understand ADHD to know if it is easy or not to get the medication. In this sense I do not know of any article on a disease in wikipedia where there is a specific section dedicated to know the legal status of the meds used for such disease. I would eliminate the full section. -- Garrondo ( talk) 20:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
There are thousands of books on ADHD each year. Any reason to have these specific ones and not other? How can be sure they a good enough or notable? I do not really think they add much to the article. I would eliminate most/all of them. -- Garrondo ( talk) 20:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I was doing some checking on sources in relation to GAN, and then I noticed that Zad had stopped reviewing sourcing. Instead of pointing out problems I am going to be bold and fix things myself, although I will try to comment here at least until the GAN finishes.
While pubmed considers it a study, when reading it it seems closer to a review; However, it is a review on high functioning children, and not specifically ADHD. Moreover it only has a 3 paragraphs in the whole article in connection with learning disabilities, and only one from those (the one cited) on ADHD, consisting in a citation from a primary source. I copy here all the text related to ADHD from the source:
In a recent study, Loureiro et al. have shown that highly gifted children with ADHD have a particular neuropsychological profile with an important difference (at least 20 points) between verbal IQ and performance IQ at Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC III) when compared to highly gifted children without ADHD.
Comment on ADHD in the article is so tangential that the source cannot be considered a reliable secondary source.
I am going to simply eliminate content based on it and also the ref, since it is probably not critical for the article.
-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
PMID 22104513: Review. Redundant ref that can be eliminated: used only twice, in lead and adult section, to source the same statement on prevalence (2-5%) and both times accompanied by another ref (Kooij) that gives the same number, is open and of similar quality.
I am going to eliminate the redundant ref.
-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Here I am and I fully agree with Garrondo!
With a warm hug to both of you MrADHD and Garrondo. Lova Falk talk 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Some comments:
With the overhaul of state run health systems the cost aspect receives new attention. A new Russian study (Yu. Vashmashinewskii, Ya. Ostrogatzkii. (2013). "Elektriskaya renoviska idiotskaya" Novshmozkapopnaya Chorkbotolovodkaya, 2013(5): 31–47 ) proved, that ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) is at least as effective as medications in hyperactive and attention deficient (Russ. dawaii parshol uri-uri, waser aus wand) children and adults. In addition it is much more cost effective, as 1 KWh (Kilowatthour) replaces 36,000 single doses of pharmaceuticals and costs only 0.20 Rubles (Da! 20 Kopeki!) 70.137.135.207 ( talk) 07:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Weaver, L.; Rostain, A. L.; Mace, W.; Akhtar, U.; Moss, E.; O'Reardon, J. P. (2012). "Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adolescents and young adults: A pilot study". The Journal of ECT. 28 (2): 98–103. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0b013e31824532c8. PMID 22551775.
Of course the first experiments were done without expensive electronic apparatus. 70.137.142.55 ( talk) 05:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We discuss how rates have changed but we do not discuss why they have changed. There is a fair bit of literature on this. Most seem to agree that it is due to loosening of the diagnostic criteria among other factors rather than an increase in hyperactivity among children. Either way it should be discussed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
An online CME course IMO would not count as a reliable source [1]. Is there a better ref to support this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Over-Thinking syndrome is a relevant disorder that should be added to the related disorders section with the following description "Due to the hyperactivity associated with ADHD Over-Thinking of situations could lead to Over-Thinking syndrome, which could aggravate any related insomnia and substance abuse caused by ADHD" 217.42.37.245 ( talk) 19:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Under the section "Signs and Symptoms", the word "inappropriate" is misspelled "innapropriate".
This would be a good ref. Lange, KW (2010 Dec). "The history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder". Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. 2 (4): 241–55.
PMID
21258430. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This needs a secondary source "Factors other than those within the DSM or ICD have been found to affect the diagnosis in clinical practice. For example, a study found that the youngest children in a class are much more likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD compared to their older counterparts in the same year. This because younger children typically have greater hyperactivity, not because they necessarily have ADHD. It is estimated that about 20 percent of children given a diagnosis of ADHD are misdiagnosed because of the month they were born." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ADHD is a fabrication to produce a lucrative market for the big-pharma industry. The effects that children have is due to teenagers developing to adults, consequences caused from parental pressure due to poor/wrong parenting, media influence, other globalist psychological operations aimed, the effects of hollywood and music. Mostly, the education system is not created for children's well being, it is an indoctrination scheme for this system, children are bored because they're being forced to learn something they don't need, learn something that will be obsolete a few years later, learn something that isn't even accurate at the time of learning. If you want to fix ADHD, go outside for fresh air, do a lot of things during the day, don't watch TV for 5-6 hours straigh or more, start exercising, start eating healthy, avoid gluten, avoid diary, avoid fast food and all kinds of snacks, avoid all fuzzy drinks and sodas, do not take vaccines, do not eat GMO, filter your tap water to remove flourides. Certain contributors to this article may be agents and shills (liars) working for the pharmaceutical industry. They will definitely try to bring some excuse up to smear me and put some self-proclaimed moderators to bother me on my page about a "controversial post" or something to make it feel like I am some troll or something, I won't be even reading it save your time and effort. Xowets ( talk) 17:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
It is written: "The pathophysiology of ADHD is unclear and there are a number of competing theories.[92] Research on children with ADHD has shown a general reduction of brain volume, but with a proportionally greater reduction in the volume of the left-sided prefrontal cortex."
A lot of data suggests that the decrease of RIGHT PFC can be observed due to impairment of mesocortical dopamine pathway. For confirmation please read: Ron M. Sullivan and Wayne G. Brake, 2003, Behavioural Brain Research 146: 43-55.
lots of people with ADHD can read nonverbal communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:BF:4916:9FCD:6A7F:602B ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
people with adhd are able to read nonverbal communication and people with adhd can read between the lines. It's not rocket science. ADHD is not autism and not aspergers. Stop making believe it is. Adhd people do get married as much as non adhdh people.This article sucks big time. There is no proof that ADHD people have harder times in relationships. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:BF:95D3:C6DF:52F5:76D8 ( talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(Outdent) Further thoughts and comments on the ip editor's original post. It is very true that ADHD is not autism spectrum disorder and by pointing out to our readers that some ADHD people have impairments with social skills and nonverbal communication will actually help our readers lay and professional alike to understand that these impairments can be due to ADHD rather than autism. So actually our article is if anything preventing people wrongly believing that said symptom is autism when it is actually ADHD. This article is actually doing the opposite of what you claim it is doing. Ultimately though it requires the skill of an experienced professional of course to properly differentiate between the two disorders and on occasion both disorders are present/comorbid in the same individual. All we can do is to summarise the facts as a general overview and leave it at that.-- MrADHD | T@1k? 20:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Some people are now actually including ADHD on the Autistic spectrum. Recent studies show they are genetically related, 70% of those with Aspergers also have ADHD, and more and more evidence now points to a connection between the two conditions, including the fact that Aspergers and ADHD share about 2/3 of symptoms, including social problems, nervous system complications, etc. Most definitely, this information should stay, for as we find out more and more about the link between autism and ADHD, I am certain that we will only find that the two are much closer than previously thought-some even now believe they are actually only variations or levels of severity of the same thing. Also, keep in mind that not every person with ADHD has every symptom of ADHD. We all have different symptoms, some are overly talkative while some are very quiet. Just because one person may have ADHD and yet be extremely quiet does not mean that over talkativeness is not a symptom of ADHD, because it is. ADHD affects the executive functions and prefrontal cortex of the brain, which control social skills and are also the areas affected by autism. Further studies in neuroscience should soon reveal the causes of both and just exactly how ADHD works. Keep in mind just because social skills and verbal communication is affected with ADHD and autism and often harms relationships does not mean one cannot succeed and be popular with ADHD, and many of those with ADHD have many friends, especially friends who share the condition, because of their lively personality. Consider Adam Levine, Britney Spears, Adam Young, etc. Don't worry so much about this, it is most definitely a challenge for ADHDers, but not like a death sentence or something. You can still have a great social life and have ADHD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.26 ( talk) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is evidence from realiable sources that indicate that people with ADHD have relationship and social skill difficulties. It should be kept because it is a commonly discussed topic about ADHD that people with it have relationship and social skill problems too.
Robert ( talk) 05:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Jmh649: Not sure what source you are looking for for this:
Do you not trust the Boston Globe to relay a press release? -- Beland ( talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, can author delete the photo in this page? You put a photo of children from Laos for the ADHD subject, which is inappropriate because it may suggest that children from Laos and Asia may have this problem more than other children. A photo of children is also inappropriate because it has nothing to do with ADHD, it's just a photo of a child.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangnanwei ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I sort of like the previous image of the student studying, especially since school performance is such a key symptoms of ADHD. Wondering if we should look for another one? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In addition to inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, other symptoms that are common in people with ADD/ADHD include:
Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
References
"ADHD is approximately three times more frequent in boys than in girls." -- Add the word "diagnosed" after "frequent" and add a "ly" at the end of that. More accurate. Many people believe it is more frequently diagnosed in boys than in girls because boys' symptoms tend to be more obvious (more hyperactivity) but occurs just as commonly in girls, only without being diagnosed. The reason for this is still not fully understood, but the above statement is not yet known to be entirely accurate, so "ADHD is approximately three times more frequently diagnosed in boys than in girls." would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.26 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Should there be a mini section title on social skill deficits? There is realiable sources that clearly indicate that social skills is a problem with many people with ADHD and there can be a paragraph discussing it?
Robert ( talk) 05:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See: At least 30 percent of children with a traumatic brain injury latter develop ADHD[71]
See: with most diagnosis begun after a teacher raises concerns.[72]
68.186.22.216 ( talk) 02:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Have removed this image [4] For one it is a primary source. For two it gives undue weight to one aspect of the topic. We have discussed it in the past. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
05:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)This passage of text is cited by a rather sketchy source ( PMID 21519262):
The long-term effects of stimulants generally are unclear with one study finding benefit, another finding no benefit and a third finding evidence of harm.[117]
Ignoring the fact that the author is implying 1 of the sources isn't peer-reviewed in the abstract, there's only three studies in the review. I've seen primary comparative studies include more external data than that when drawing conclusions on their findings. Ex: this one used four (table 2): PMID 22037049. I think it would be best to look for an actual review of literature to cite a statement on this topic. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither ref [5] says anything about long term treatments effects on hard endpoints. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Structural changes are a surrogate marker. Hard endpoints would be things like employment and academic achievement. What do you wish to use those refs to say? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This review looks more applicable [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The study that begun this discussion was looking at treatment for 5 years or longer. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@
Jmh649:, after thinking about this more, I think it would be best to simply summarize all relevant, quality pubmed secondary sources from the last 2-5 years to state what long-term effects are known to result from psychostimulant use. Given that three high-quality papers - including two meta-analyses and two broad reviews of literature - indicate definitive long-term effects exist, it's contradictory to state "the long-term effects of stimulants generally are unclear" without any qualification. If you really want to keep that paper in there, I'm fine with it so long as it's indicated that the paper stating this is a very limited or editorial review of literature.
I'm still not sure what the "beneficial effects" and "harm" are that the review is referring to though - that should be clarified if its kept.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Concluding remarks from sources
|
---|
PMID
23179416
|
Despite the potential biases, limitations, and data heterogeneity endemic to studies on the long-term effects of ADHD stimulants, the results appear to suggest that these drugs normalize brain structure abnormalities in ADHD and improve classroom behavior and academic performance in children. [1] [2] [3]
This review PMID 23179416 appear to be looking at short turn changes in academics. Which is good information but is not dealing with long term outcomes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Findings from previous reviews assessing the effects of drugs on educational outcomes for children with ADHD have been inconsistent. The findings of this review are contrary to some reviews, including Schachar [23] and Jadad et al. [22], who found that studies of long-term treatment with stimulants provided little evidence for improved academic performance. However, the review by Schachar [23] was based on only 17 studies with the authors rating only five as of adequate methodological quality, and with insufficient data for meta-analysis. Similarly, Jadad et al. [22] included only twenty-three studies that compared drug differences, and did not combine these studies quantitatively. The present review includes a number of papers published post-Schachar’s [23] review, focuses on both seatwork completed and accuracy, and most notably is able to present a quantitative analysis of studies suggesting an overall improvement in academic performance with drugs.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
the medication section of the article lists only atomoxetine (Strattera) and "stimulants." This seemed very incomplete for a section on medication for an illness that is usually medicated. In good faith I laboriously added the information (With Citations!) The visible text amounted to two sentences.
I took a phone call, came back and my changes were reverted with an "I don't think we need this."
If you prefer not to list any medication names in this article, then you should remove the random references to atomoxetine as well. I see no reason for it to receive special treatment. Ukrpickaxe ( talk) 19:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Clicking the "stimulant" link under Medication does not take us to an ADHD page, it goes to a page about "uppers" with various charts of chemical compositions.
I was diagnosed with ADHD at IQ 138 in the 1980s, and forced against my will as a nine-year old child to take legally prescribed speed, in the form of Ritalin and later Amphetamines. The medicine has helped, in the right circumstances, but the side effects can be unpleasant, severe, and potentially deadly, with a high potential for life-threatening abuse. I have also had negative experiences with prescribed antidepressants, which are known to cause a host of unpleasant and sometimes life threatening side effects in some patients.
Last month I saw a lecture by Dr Allan Frankel (his website is http://www.greenbridgemed.com/) in Copenhagen, Denmark on the subject of medical cannabis, popularly known as the increasingly less illegal drug marijuana. Looking around the web in follow up, I can see that this is a major emerging direction in treating ADHD, but outside the scope of the corporate pharmaceutical industry and thus the mainstream treatment of ADHD in most places.
Yet cannabis is currently being prescribed for ADHD, and lauded both for its efficacy and its safety— in fact, according to the state of the art in the research, it is actually impossible to suffer a life-threatening overdose from cannabis alone. So it's high time for us to begin a new section on Cannabis as a treatment for ADHD in this article, so we can all benefit from details of treatments in the field and the the developing research as this new approach widens. Thank you for your time and attention. Kaecyy ( talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The deleted defintion of Tourette syndrome was not so far off. You could have a look at syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Which as cited in Cortical excitability and neurology: insights into the pathophysiology dolfrog ( talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted this [8] as we already say the same with a newer ref just a couple of lines above. Also formatting is poor. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This article currently contains diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR. The DSM-5 came out in 2013 and so the diagnostic criteria should be updated to reflect this.
For information on the changes made for ADD/ADHD in the DSM-5, please refer to this page: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/ADHD%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf Lmathison ( talk) 14:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay read the DSM 5, have updated. Little has changed other than the time symptoms need to start before. DSM 5 states before 12 years of age. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The Adults subsection under "Special populations" reads to me a bit like "The prognosis for children with ADHD is horrible!". It's pretty unbalanced. I also don't understand the intention behind having an "Adults" section under "Special Populations". What kind of info was meant to go in this section? Especially since most children with ADHD continue to have symptoms in adulthood. I would say adults are not a "special" population at all--they're the same population as the rest of the article. So, I'd like the delete this subsection altogether and disperse the content into the different sections of the article so that it's side-by-side with info about ADHD in childhood.
I see there's also a link further up on the page to a Wiki article on Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I glanced at that article and it has quite a bit of info on ADHD in childhood, anyway. It also repeats a lot of the info that's already in this article. I propose we merge the two articles, since ADHD is not just (or even primarily) a disease of childhood. We could talk somewhere in the merged article about ADHD through the lifespan; typical presentation by age group; and just include more info on differences between age groups throughout the rest of article. Thoughts? Nimptsch3 ( talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Have removed this terminology. It is US centric while we are trying to write for a global audience [9] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs and the "Prognosis" section both cite source 13 which says 30-50% of children will still have adhd as an adult. (I'm approximating the words here, please see article for precision.) Source 13 is only cited these two times. The beloved Source 1, used many times in the article, is cited in "Special populations: Adults" section stating that 2/3 of child sufferers will have it as an adult.
Since I don't want to fight the ADHD Powers That Be on this one, I leave it up to you to adjust one way or the other. Ukrpickaxe ( talk) 09:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
After noticing that this article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as been blocked, I will no more donate any money to wikipedia. Everyone intelligent knows that Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not a disorder per se. At least, an section of this article should be open to stimulate the controversy and the debate. By closing the article, the wikipedia is supporting the position of the medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies that have their own interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.19.133 ( talk) 01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Should this be added to the associated disorders section? At the bottom of the page it's also listed in the "other" section. Robert4565 ( talk) 13:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649, What if I use this reference? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278310/ Robert4565 ( talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Jmh649: Hey Jmh, I figured it might be worth updating the article with additional (and newer) sources, particularly the Cochrane reviews on ADHD meds that I used in the amphetamine article, but aren't used in this one. I think it would be better if you decided on what parts of this to add, based upon your judgement of the text/refs, since this is the (only) part of the article in which I have a potential COI (favoring psychostimulants for ADHD). That said, 6 reviewers went through this part so far at the FAC (it's been HEAVILY edited/reviewed), so you probably wont need to worry about the writing quality if you just want to copy/paste parts you decide to use.
In any event, I color coded the text by my personal view on reference quality:
I put the highlighting templates on separate lines in the source, so it should be easy for you to read the source code.
CE'd text from amphetamine (reference/text reviewed by 6 people at FAC)
| ||
---|---|---|
Magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine or methylphenidate can decrease the abnormalities of brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD, and improve the function of the right
caudate nucleus.
[1]
[2] Reviews of clinical stimulant research have established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for ADHD.
[3]
[4] References
|
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
First paragraph is looking at none clinical markers. Thus not really the questions people care about.
The second paragraph uses poor refs including webmed. We should add the conclusions of the Cochrane review. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In case you care to read anything in more detail, they're all hosted here. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "maybe" to "may be" in header of table: "ADHD symptoms which maybe related to other disorders." Grammarish ( talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
New findings allege to confirm a neurobiological origin in the the superior colliculus structure (in mice). If someone qualified could please check this out and include it (if relevant)? Here's one article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411091727.htm Ernest Ruger ( talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request that...
The statistic stating that "40-50% of people diagnosed in childhood continue to have symptoms into adulthood" be altered to "Approximately 60% of children who are diagnosed with the disorder at a young age continue to show symptoms into adulthood"
SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS I request that the following be added
The DSM-IV requires that 6 or more of nine symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity be present for at least 6 months in order to properly diagnose. Citation- [1]
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder is characterized by uninhibited responses, lack of sustained attention and hyperactivity Citation- [2]
CAUSES Genetics-
Genetics play a key role in the likelihood of an individual to develop ADHD, it is estimated that the rate of heritability is between 75-91%. Citation- [3]
Social-
Norwegian Behavioral neuroscientist Terje Sagvolden found that one of the causes of the deficiency in dopamine transmission that is seen in those with ADHD was a increase in the steepness of their delay in reinforcement gradient. What this means is that when children with ADHD are exposed to a stimuli immediate reinforcement proves to be even more effective than in children who do not have the condition, however almost any delay in the reinforcement leads to a drastic drop off in potency. This causes problems for the child in forming mental relations between actions and consequences. Citations- [4]
PATHOLOGY Brain Structure-
Children diagnosed with ADHD have been found to have noticeably delayed growth of their Cerebral Cortex. It take until a child with ADHD is about the age of 10.5 before the cortical thickness is equal to that of and unaffected child at the age of 7.5. Citation- [6]
Studies have show that ADHD is connected to abnormalities in parts of the brain involving the striatum as well as the prefrontal cortex. Both of these areas of the brain play key roles in the dopamine innervation leading researchers to believe that the proliferation of dopamine may play a key role in the change in brain functioning. Citations- [7]
Neurotransmitters-
Recent studies have shown a relation to decreased levels of dopamine and norepinephrine to impaired performance on working memory tasks. These impairments mirror the symptoms shown in patients diagnosed with ADHD. Conversely the same study showed that by increasing both dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the prefrontal cortex served to alleviate symptoms. Citation- [11]
MANAGEMENT Medication-
The most common form of medication offered to treat the symptoms of ADHD is Methylphenidate (Ritalin) which combats the symptoms of ADHD by increasing dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the prefrontal cortex. Citation- [12]
The effectiveness of Methylphenidate in respect to dosage follows an inverted-U pattern, with not enough of it resulting in unaltered low levels of dopamine and too high levels working to actively suppress neural activity Citation- [13]
Another type of drug used to treat the symptoms of ADHD are amphetamines, however the effects can vary from person to person. Studies have shown that a key factor in the effects of amphetamine on an individual depends on the level of Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) in an individual's brain. COMT is an enzyme that affects dopamine levels and depending on the level of COMT the use of Amphetamines can have opposite effects of either raising or lowering positive mood. Citation- [14]
Thank you for your time. -Richard Smullen RSmullen ( talk) 15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
References
I find the picture rasist! 93.219.150.101 ( talk) 15:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
In the section "Pathophysiology" sub-section "Brain Structure" it currently reads:
The brain pathways connecting the prefrontal cortex and the striatum also appears to be involved. This suggest that inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity may reflect frontal lobe dysfunction, with addition brain regions such as the cerebellum also being implicated.
"appears" should be "appear"; "suggest" should be "suggests"; "addition" should be "additional"
Also, in the section "Management", sub-section "Medication" it currently reads:
Stimulants but not atomoxetine appear to improve academic performance.[124]
This is a bit awkward as written - perhaps the "but not atomoxetine" should be in parentheses, or changed to "Stimulants other than atomoxetine..."
In the same section, there is a sentence that currently reads:
The long-term effects of stimulants generally are unclear with one study finding benefit, another finding no benefit and a third finding evidence of harm.[126] Their long term use does; however, appear to normalize brain structure.
The second sentence should read, "Their long-term use does, however, appear to normalize brain structure."
Thx -- Red Pen Demon ( talk) 14:02, 1 May 2014 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 28 |
Having quickly scoped the article after seeing it listed as a 'Good Article' nominee: it seems heavily biased towards the Pharma Industry's point of view. There's no inherent problem with moving "Controversy" to a side article. But most of the claims retained at this page are still controversial! They reflect the view of one particular side of the "controversy". Take this list of "Causes" for example. Am I the only one flabbergasted that classrooms and workplaces are not listed among possible causes of "attention deficit" problems? Another section mentions sociologists who describe "ADHD" as medicalization of deviant behavior; the following sentence counters that: "Most healthcare providers in U.S. accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder..." What does "genuine disorder" even mean? (Isn't deviance explicitly part of the DSM definition of a disorder?) The term also appears in the lead. The first source cited says that ADHD is generally recognized to "exist". Helpful? This article reads like sophisticated advertising for legal stimulants. groupuscule ( talk) 06:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the point of having this section in the article. The article is on ADHD. Facts of medications should be mentioned if they are important to understand the disease. However, the legal status of the medication, while very relevant for the articles on the medications does not really fit in an article on the disease, as it does not help to understand ADHD to know if it is easy or not to get the medication. In this sense I do not know of any article on a disease in wikipedia where there is a specific section dedicated to know the legal status of the meds used for such disease. I would eliminate the full section. -- Garrondo ( talk) 20:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
There are thousands of books on ADHD each year. Any reason to have these specific ones and not other? How can be sure they a good enough or notable? I do not really think they add much to the article. I would eliminate most/all of them. -- Garrondo ( talk) 20:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I was doing some checking on sources in relation to GAN, and then I noticed that Zad had stopped reviewing sourcing. Instead of pointing out problems I am going to be bold and fix things myself, although I will try to comment here at least until the GAN finishes.
While pubmed considers it a study, when reading it it seems closer to a review; However, it is a review on high functioning children, and not specifically ADHD. Moreover it only has a 3 paragraphs in the whole article in connection with learning disabilities, and only one from those (the one cited) on ADHD, consisting in a citation from a primary source. I copy here all the text related to ADHD from the source:
In a recent study, Loureiro et al. have shown that highly gifted children with ADHD have a particular neuropsychological profile with an important difference (at least 20 points) between verbal IQ and performance IQ at Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC III) when compared to highly gifted children without ADHD.
Comment on ADHD in the article is so tangential that the source cannot be considered a reliable secondary source.
I am going to simply eliminate content based on it and also the ref, since it is probably not critical for the article.
-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
PMID 22104513: Review. Redundant ref that can be eliminated: used only twice, in lead and adult section, to source the same statement on prevalence (2-5%) and both times accompanied by another ref (Kooij) that gives the same number, is open and of similar quality.
I am going to eliminate the redundant ref.
-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Here I am and I fully agree with Garrondo!
With a warm hug to both of you MrADHD and Garrondo. Lova Falk talk 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Some comments:
With the overhaul of state run health systems the cost aspect receives new attention. A new Russian study (Yu. Vashmashinewskii, Ya. Ostrogatzkii. (2013). "Elektriskaya renoviska idiotskaya" Novshmozkapopnaya Chorkbotolovodkaya, 2013(5): 31–47 ) proved, that ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) is at least as effective as medications in hyperactive and attention deficient (Russ. dawaii parshol uri-uri, waser aus wand) children and adults. In addition it is much more cost effective, as 1 KWh (Kilowatthour) replaces 36,000 single doses of pharmaceuticals and costs only 0.20 Rubles (Da! 20 Kopeki!) 70.137.135.207 ( talk) 07:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Weaver, L.; Rostain, A. L.; Mace, W.; Akhtar, U.; Moss, E.; O'Reardon, J. P. (2012). "Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adolescents and young adults: A pilot study". The Journal of ECT. 28 (2): 98–103. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0b013e31824532c8. PMID 22551775.
Of course the first experiments were done without expensive electronic apparatus. 70.137.142.55 ( talk) 05:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We discuss how rates have changed but we do not discuss why they have changed. There is a fair bit of literature on this. Most seem to agree that it is due to loosening of the diagnostic criteria among other factors rather than an increase in hyperactivity among children. Either way it should be discussed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
An online CME course IMO would not count as a reliable source [1]. Is there a better ref to support this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Over-Thinking syndrome is a relevant disorder that should be added to the related disorders section with the following description "Due to the hyperactivity associated with ADHD Over-Thinking of situations could lead to Over-Thinking syndrome, which could aggravate any related insomnia and substance abuse caused by ADHD" 217.42.37.245 ( talk) 19:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Under the section "Signs and Symptoms", the word "inappropriate" is misspelled "innapropriate".
This would be a good ref. Lange, KW (2010 Dec). "The history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder". Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. 2 (4): 241–55.
PMID
21258430. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This needs a secondary source "Factors other than those within the DSM or ICD have been found to affect the diagnosis in clinical practice. For example, a study found that the youngest children in a class are much more likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD compared to their older counterparts in the same year. This because younger children typically have greater hyperactivity, not because they necessarily have ADHD. It is estimated that about 20 percent of children given a diagnosis of ADHD are misdiagnosed because of the month they were born." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ADHD is a fabrication to produce a lucrative market for the big-pharma industry. The effects that children have is due to teenagers developing to adults, consequences caused from parental pressure due to poor/wrong parenting, media influence, other globalist psychological operations aimed, the effects of hollywood and music. Mostly, the education system is not created for children's well being, it is an indoctrination scheme for this system, children are bored because they're being forced to learn something they don't need, learn something that will be obsolete a few years later, learn something that isn't even accurate at the time of learning. If you want to fix ADHD, go outside for fresh air, do a lot of things during the day, don't watch TV for 5-6 hours straigh or more, start exercising, start eating healthy, avoid gluten, avoid diary, avoid fast food and all kinds of snacks, avoid all fuzzy drinks and sodas, do not take vaccines, do not eat GMO, filter your tap water to remove flourides. Certain contributors to this article may be agents and shills (liars) working for the pharmaceutical industry. They will definitely try to bring some excuse up to smear me and put some self-proclaimed moderators to bother me on my page about a "controversial post" or something to make it feel like I am some troll or something, I won't be even reading it save your time and effort. Xowets ( talk) 17:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
It is written: "The pathophysiology of ADHD is unclear and there are a number of competing theories.[92] Research on children with ADHD has shown a general reduction of brain volume, but with a proportionally greater reduction in the volume of the left-sided prefrontal cortex."
A lot of data suggests that the decrease of RIGHT PFC can be observed due to impairment of mesocortical dopamine pathway. For confirmation please read: Ron M. Sullivan and Wayne G. Brake, 2003, Behavioural Brain Research 146: 43-55.
lots of people with ADHD can read nonverbal communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:BF:4916:9FCD:6A7F:602B ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
people with adhd are able to read nonverbal communication and people with adhd can read between the lines. It's not rocket science. ADHD is not autism and not aspergers. Stop making believe it is. Adhd people do get married as much as non adhdh people.This article sucks big time. There is no proof that ADHD people have harder times in relationships. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:BF:95D3:C6DF:52F5:76D8 ( talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(Outdent) Further thoughts and comments on the ip editor's original post. It is very true that ADHD is not autism spectrum disorder and by pointing out to our readers that some ADHD people have impairments with social skills and nonverbal communication will actually help our readers lay and professional alike to understand that these impairments can be due to ADHD rather than autism. So actually our article is if anything preventing people wrongly believing that said symptom is autism when it is actually ADHD. This article is actually doing the opposite of what you claim it is doing. Ultimately though it requires the skill of an experienced professional of course to properly differentiate between the two disorders and on occasion both disorders are present/comorbid in the same individual. All we can do is to summarise the facts as a general overview and leave it at that.-- MrADHD | T@1k? 20:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Some people are now actually including ADHD on the Autistic spectrum. Recent studies show they are genetically related, 70% of those with Aspergers also have ADHD, and more and more evidence now points to a connection between the two conditions, including the fact that Aspergers and ADHD share about 2/3 of symptoms, including social problems, nervous system complications, etc. Most definitely, this information should stay, for as we find out more and more about the link between autism and ADHD, I am certain that we will only find that the two are much closer than previously thought-some even now believe they are actually only variations or levels of severity of the same thing. Also, keep in mind that not every person with ADHD has every symptom of ADHD. We all have different symptoms, some are overly talkative while some are very quiet. Just because one person may have ADHD and yet be extremely quiet does not mean that over talkativeness is not a symptom of ADHD, because it is. ADHD affects the executive functions and prefrontal cortex of the brain, which control social skills and are also the areas affected by autism. Further studies in neuroscience should soon reveal the causes of both and just exactly how ADHD works. Keep in mind just because social skills and verbal communication is affected with ADHD and autism and often harms relationships does not mean one cannot succeed and be popular with ADHD, and many of those with ADHD have many friends, especially friends who share the condition, because of their lively personality. Consider Adam Levine, Britney Spears, Adam Young, etc. Don't worry so much about this, it is most definitely a challenge for ADHDers, but not like a death sentence or something. You can still have a great social life and have ADHD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.26 ( talk) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is evidence from realiable sources that indicate that people with ADHD have relationship and social skill difficulties. It should be kept because it is a commonly discussed topic about ADHD that people with it have relationship and social skill problems too.
Robert ( talk) 05:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Jmh649: Not sure what source you are looking for for this:
Do you not trust the Boston Globe to relay a press release? -- Beland ( talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, can author delete the photo in this page? You put a photo of children from Laos for the ADHD subject, which is inappropriate because it may suggest that children from Laos and Asia may have this problem more than other children. A photo of children is also inappropriate because it has nothing to do with ADHD, it's just a photo of a child.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangnanwei ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I sort of like the previous image of the student studying, especially since school performance is such a key symptoms of ADHD. Wondering if we should look for another one? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In addition to inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, other symptoms that are common in people with ADD/ADHD include:
Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
References
"ADHD is approximately three times more frequent in boys than in girls." -- Add the word "diagnosed" after "frequent" and add a "ly" at the end of that. More accurate. Many people believe it is more frequently diagnosed in boys than in girls because boys' symptoms tend to be more obvious (more hyperactivity) but occurs just as commonly in girls, only without being diagnosed. The reason for this is still not fully understood, but the above statement is not yet known to be entirely accurate, so "ADHD is approximately three times more frequently diagnosed in boys than in girls." would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.26 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Should there be a mini section title on social skill deficits? There is realiable sources that clearly indicate that social skills is a problem with many people with ADHD and there can be a paragraph discussing it?
Robert ( talk) 05:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See: At least 30 percent of children with a traumatic brain injury latter develop ADHD[71]
See: with most diagnosis begun after a teacher raises concerns.[72]
68.186.22.216 ( talk) 02:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Have removed this image [4] For one it is a primary source. For two it gives undue weight to one aspect of the topic. We have discussed it in the past. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
05:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)This passage of text is cited by a rather sketchy source ( PMID 21519262):
The long-term effects of stimulants generally are unclear with one study finding benefit, another finding no benefit and a third finding evidence of harm.[117]
Ignoring the fact that the author is implying 1 of the sources isn't peer-reviewed in the abstract, there's only three studies in the review. I've seen primary comparative studies include more external data than that when drawing conclusions on their findings. Ex: this one used four (table 2): PMID 22037049. I think it would be best to look for an actual review of literature to cite a statement on this topic. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither ref [5] says anything about long term treatments effects on hard endpoints. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Structural changes are a surrogate marker. Hard endpoints would be things like employment and academic achievement. What do you wish to use those refs to say? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This review looks more applicable [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The study that begun this discussion was looking at treatment for 5 years or longer. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@
Jmh649:, after thinking about this more, I think it would be best to simply summarize all relevant, quality pubmed secondary sources from the last 2-5 years to state what long-term effects are known to result from psychostimulant use. Given that three high-quality papers - including two meta-analyses and two broad reviews of literature - indicate definitive long-term effects exist, it's contradictory to state "the long-term effects of stimulants generally are unclear" without any qualification. If you really want to keep that paper in there, I'm fine with it so long as it's indicated that the paper stating this is a very limited or editorial review of literature.
I'm still not sure what the "beneficial effects" and "harm" are that the review is referring to though - that should be clarified if its kept.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Concluding remarks from sources
|
---|
PMID
23179416
|
Despite the potential biases, limitations, and data heterogeneity endemic to studies on the long-term effects of ADHD stimulants, the results appear to suggest that these drugs normalize brain structure abnormalities in ADHD and improve classroom behavior and academic performance in children. [1] [2] [3]
This review PMID 23179416 appear to be looking at short turn changes in academics. Which is good information but is not dealing with long term outcomes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Findings from previous reviews assessing the effects of drugs on educational outcomes for children with ADHD have been inconsistent. The findings of this review are contrary to some reviews, including Schachar [23] and Jadad et al. [22], who found that studies of long-term treatment with stimulants provided little evidence for improved academic performance. However, the review by Schachar [23] was based on only 17 studies with the authors rating only five as of adequate methodological quality, and with insufficient data for meta-analysis. Similarly, Jadad et al. [22] included only twenty-three studies that compared drug differences, and did not combine these studies quantitatively. The present review includes a number of papers published post-Schachar’s [23] review, focuses on both seatwork completed and accuracy, and most notably is able to present a quantitative analysis of studies suggesting an overall improvement in academic performance with drugs.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
the medication section of the article lists only atomoxetine (Strattera) and "stimulants." This seemed very incomplete for a section on medication for an illness that is usually medicated. In good faith I laboriously added the information (With Citations!) The visible text amounted to two sentences.
I took a phone call, came back and my changes were reverted with an "I don't think we need this."
If you prefer not to list any medication names in this article, then you should remove the random references to atomoxetine as well. I see no reason for it to receive special treatment. Ukrpickaxe ( talk) 19:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Clicking the "stimulant" link under Medication does not take us to an ADHD page, it goes to a page about "uppers" with various charts of chemical compositions.
I was diagnosed with ADHD at IQ 138 in the 1980s, and forced against my will as a nine-year old child to take legally prescribed speed, in the form of Ritalin and later Amphetamines. The medicine has helped, in the right circumstances, but the side effects can be unpleasant, severe, and potentially deadly, with a high potential for life-threatening abuse. I have also had negative experiences with prescribed antidepressants, which are known to cause a host of unpleasant and sometimes life threatening side effects in some patients.
Last month I saw a lecture by Dr Allan Frankel (his website is http://www.greenbridgemed.com/) in Copenhagen, Denmark on the subject of medical cannabis, popularly known as the increasingly less illegal drug marijuana. Looking around the web in follow up, I can see that this is a major emerging direction in treating ADHD, but outside the scope of the corporate pharmaceutical industry and thus the mainstream treatment of ADHD in most places.
Yet cannabis is currently being prescribed for ADHD, and lauded both for its efficacy and its safety— in fact, according to the state of the art in the research, it is actually impossible to suffer a life-threatening overdose from cannabis alone. So it's high time for us to begin a new section on Cannabis as a treatment for ADHD in this article, so we can all benefit from details of treatments in the field and the the developing research as this new approach widens. Thank you for your time and attention. Kaecyy ( talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The deleted defintion of Tourette syndrome was not so far off. You could have a look at syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Which as cited in Cortical excitability and neurology: insights into the pathophysiology dolfrog ( talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted this [8] as we already say the same with a newer ref just a couple of lines above. Also formatting is poor. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This article currently contains diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR. The DSM-5 came out in 2013 and so the diagnostic criteria should be updated to reflect this.
For information on the changes made for ADD/ADHD in the DSM-5, please refer to this page: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/ADHD%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf Lmathison ( talk) 14:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay read the DSM 5, have updated. Little has changed other than the time symptoms need to start before. DSM 5 states before 12 years of age. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The Adults subsection under "Special populations" reads to me a bit like "The prognosis for children with ADHD is horrible!". It's pretty unbalanced. I also don't understand the intention behind having an "Adults" section under "Special Populations". What kind of info was meant to go in this section? Especially since most children with ADHD continue to have symptoms in adulthood. I would say adults are not a "special" population at all--they're the same population as the rest of the article. So, I'd like the delete this subsection altogether and disperse the content into the different sections of the article so that it's side-by-side with info about ADHD in childhood.
I see there's also a link further up on the page to a Wiki article on Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I glanced at that article and it has quite a bit of info on ADHD in childhood, anyway. It also repeats a lot of the info that's already in this article. I propose we merge the two articles, since ADHD is not just (or even primarily) a disease of childhood. We could talk somewhere in the merged article about ADHD through the lifespan; typical presentation by age group; and just include more info on differences between age groups throughout the rest of article. Thoughts? Nimptsch3 ( talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Have removed this terminology. It is US centric while we are trying to write for a global audience [9] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs and the "Prognosis" section both cite source 13 which says 30-50% of children will still have adhd as an adult. (I'm approximating the words here, please see article for precision.) Source 13 is only cited these two times. The beloved Source 1, used many times in the article, is cited in "Special populations: Adults" section stating that 2/3 of child sufferers will have it as an adult.
Since I don't want to fight the ADHD Powers That Be on this one, I leave it up to you to adjust one way or the other. Ukrpickaxe ( talk) 09:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
After noticing that this article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as been blocked, I will no more donate any money to wikipedia. Everyone intelligent knows that Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not a disorder per se. At least, an section of this article should be open to stimulate the controversy and the debate. By closing the article, the wikipedia is supporting the position of the medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies that have their own interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.19.133 ( talk) 01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Should this be added to the associated disorders section? At the bottom of the page it's also listed in the "other" section. Robert4565 ( talk) 13:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649, What if I use this reference? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278310/ Robert4565 ( talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Jmh649: Hey Jmh, I figured it might be worth updating the article with additional (and newer) sources, particularly the Cochrane reviews on ADHD meds that I used in the amphetamine article, but aren't used in this one. I think it would be better if you decided on what parts of this to add, based upon your judgement of the text/refs, since this is the (only) part of the article in which I have a potential COI (favoring psychostimulants for ADHD). That said, 6 reviewers went through this part so far at the FAC (it's been HEAVILY edited/reviewed), so you probably wont need to worry about the writing quality if you just want to copy/paste parts you decide to use.
In any event, I color coded the text by my personal view on reference quality:
I put the highlighting templates on separate lines in the source, so it should be easy for you to read the source code.
CE'd text from amphetamine (reference/text reviewed by 6 people at FAC)
| ||
---|---|---|
Magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine or methylphenidate can decrease the abnormalities of brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD, and improve the function of the right
caudate nucleus.
[1]
[2] Reviews of clinical stimulant research have established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for ADHD.
[3]
[4] References
|
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
First paragraph is looking at none clinical markers. Thus not really the questions people care about.
The second paragraph uses poor refs including webmed. We should add the conclusions of the Cochrane review. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In case you care to read anything in more detail, they're all hosted here. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "maybe" to "may be" in header of table: "ADHD symptoms which maybe related to other disorders." Grammarish ( talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
New findings allege to confirm a neurobiological origin in the the superior colliculus structure (in mice). If someone qualified could please check this out and include it (if relevant)? Here's one article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411091727.htm Ernest Ruger ( talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request that...
The statistic stating that "40-50% of people diagnosed in childhood continue to have symptoms into adulthood" be altered to "Approximately 60% of children who are diagnosed with the disorder at a young age continue to show symptoms into adulthood"
SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS I request that the following be added
The DSM-IV requires that 6 or more of nine symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity be present for at least 6 months in order to properly diagnose. Citation- [1]
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder is characterized by uninhibited responses, lack of sustained attention and hyperactivity Citation- [2]
CAUSES Genetics-
Genetics play a key role in the likelihood of an individual to develop ADHD, it is estimated that the rate of heritability is between 75-91%. Citation- [3]
Social-
Norwegian Behavioral neuroscientist Terje Sagvolden found that one of the causes of the deficiency in dopamine transmission that is seen in those with ADHD was a increase in the steepness of their delay in reinforcement gradient. What this means is that when children with ADHD are exposed to a stimuli immediate reinforcement proves to be even more effective than in children who do not have the condition, however almost any delay in the reinforcement leads to a drastic drop off in potency. This causes problems for the child in forming mental relations between actions and consequences. Citations- [4]
PATHOLOGY Brain Structure-
Children diagnosed with ADHD have been found to have noticeably delayed growth of their Cerebral Cortex. It take until a child with ADHD is about the age of 10.5 before the cortical thickness is equal to that of and unaffected child at the age of 7.5. Citation- [6]
Studies have show that ADHD is connected to abnormalities in parts of the brain involving the striatum as well as the prefrontal cortex. Both of these areas of the brain play key roles in the dopamine innervation leading researchers to believe that the proliferation of dopamine may play a key role in the change in brain functioning. Citations- [7]
Neurotransmitters-
Recent studies have shown a relation to decreased levels of dopamine and norepinephrine to impaired performance on working memory tasks. These impairments mirror the symptoms shown in patients diagnosed with ADHD. Conversely the same study showed that by increasing both dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the prefrontal cortex served to alleviate symptoms. Citation- [11]
MANAGEMENT Medication-
The most common form of medication offered to treat the symptoms of ADHD is Methylphenidate (Ritalin) which combats the symptoms of ADHD by increasing dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the prefrontal cortex. Citation- [12]
The effectiveness of Methylphenidate in respect to dosage follows an inverted-U pattern, with not enough of it resulting in unaltered low levels of dopamine and too high levels working to actively suppress neural activity Citation- [13]
Another type of drug used to treat the symptoms of ADHD are amphetamines, however the effects can vary from person to person. Studies have shown that a key factor in the effects of amphetamine on an individual depends on the level of Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) in an individual's brain. COMT is an enzyme that affects dopamine levels and depending on the level of COMT the use of Amphetamines can have opposite effects of either raising or lowering positive mood. Citation- [14]
Thank you for your time. -Richard Smullen RSmullen ( talk) 15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
References
I find the picture rasist! 93.219.150.101 ( talk) 15:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
In the section "Pathophysiology" sub-section "Brain Structure" it currently reads:
The brain pathways connecting the prefrontal cortex and the striatum also appears to be involved. This suggest that inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity may reflect frontal lobe dysfunction, with addition brain regions such as the cerebellum also being implicated.
"appears" should be "appear"; "suggest" should be "suggests"; "addition" should be "additional"
Also, in the section "Management", sub-section "Medication" it currently reads:
Stimulants but not atomoxetine appear to improve academic performance.[124]
This is a bit awkward as written - perhaps the "but not atomoxetine" should be in parentheses, or changed to "Stimulants other than atomoxetine..."
In the same section, there is a sentence that currently reads:
The long-term effects of stimulants generally are unclear with one study finding benefit, another finding no benefit and a third finding evidence of harm.[126] Their long term use does; however, appear to normalize brain structure.
The second sentence should read, "Their long-term use does, however, appear to normalize brain structure."
Thx -- Red Pen Demon ( talk) 14:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)