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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
@
Doc James:
The term “biomarker”, a portmanteau of “biological marker”, refers to a broad subcategory of medical signs – that is, objective indications of medical state observed from outside the patient – which can be measured accurately and reproducibly. Medical signs stand in contrast to medical symptoms, which are limited to those indications of health or illness perceived by patients themselves.
— What are Biomarkers? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078627/
This section should really be placed under signs/symptoms since that's the section/topic to which those ADHD biomarkers are most relevant. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
"serum CK" is also neither a sign nor a symptom in how the general population uses the words. It often fits under diagnosis. In other conditions it would fit under research if it is in its very early stages. Have asked for further input at WPMED. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I would put material on biomarkers in a research section. These aren't used in clinical practice except maybe by hardcore biological psychiatrists or researchers in tertiary institutions. The article itself says, "Although the results of our statistically significant meta-analyses are promising, when considering the potential utility of biomarkers, one must address not only the statistical significance of effects, but also whether the magnitude of the effect will translate into a clinically useful measure." To be honest, research will get all excited by this stuff and ignore studies on childhood adversity/trauma which show huge increases in incidence of all mental illnesses. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It supports putting the content under research.- ROFL. That's a funny joke; it's almost like you were intentionally pulling that statement out of your ass to support your argument and ignoring the text which is underlined, bolded, and in enlarged font in the quote box. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 02:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I support inclusion of "Biomarker research" as a sub-heading at the end of the Diagnosis section, I think this will address everybody's concerns. M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on the matter:
Extended content
|
---|
Medical researchers who actively study addiction have criticized the DSM classification of addiction for being flawed and involving arbitrary diagnostic criteria. [1] Writing in 2013, the director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health discussed the invalidity of the DSM-5's classification of mental disorders: [2]
References
|
. Hm. So a disease biomarker is not relevant to medicine, but rather to scientific research. It wouldn't go in the Signs or the Diagnostics section... 02:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This shouldn't be under the cause section, but instead under the "Society and culture" section if at all. Upon first glance of their Wikipedia article it appears they believe all mental disorders are invented rather than discovered, so perhaps it is completely undue weight to mention his opinion in this article at all.
This section has too much info that should be presented in the "Management" section if at all.
Considering this is a GA, and that earlier in the section it is stated that "With the DSM-IV criteria a diagnosis of ADHD is 3–4 times more likely than with the ICD-10 criteria", there should be more description of the ICD-10 than it's symptoms being analogous to those of a similar disorder in the DSM, which is true in general.
Should probably be moved to the research section for reasons analogous to those given in the above talk page section, i.e. it doesn't appear anything in that section is actually routinely employed in managing ADHD, although it is actively researched.
Thoughts? M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 07:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"Upon first glance of their Wikipedia article it appears they believe all mental disorders are invented rather than discovered."
In daily usage, ADD refers to "attention deficit disorder" as a separate (though related) syndrome. I've added the three subtypes to the lead, as an iad for those people who are looking for info specifically on ADD; they most likely won't be searching for "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive," nor have the patience to find out that that's the link they're looking for... And after all, that's the group that's most likely to be looking for info, so a consumer-friendly approach may be quite welcome here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate ADD page. In practise ADD and ADHD are two different things, with very different implications. I don't agree that most people use the term interchangeably, far from it in fact. - Anonymous coward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.149.77.58 ( talk) 13:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We have two 2016 systematic reviews published on the same journal, Journal of Attention Disorders.
One concludes (Jan 2016):
PMID 26825336 "Up till now, there is no conclusive evidence for a relationship between ADHD and CD. Therefore, it is not advised to perform routine screening of CD when assessing ADHD (and vice versa) or to implement GFD as a standard treatment in ADHD. Nevertheless, the possibility of untreated CD predisposing to ADHD-like behavior should be kept in mind. ... It is possible that in untreated patients with CD, neurologic symptoms such as chronic fatigue, inattention, pain, and headache could predispose patients to ADHD-like behavior (mainly symptoms of inattentive type), which may be alleviated after GFD treatment."
and the other one concludes (Sep 2016):
PMID 27664125 "We found a consistent association between aADHD and increased risk of obesity, sleep disorders, and asthma. Associations were also consistent for migraine and celiac disease."
I would like to know your opinions about how we should reword or expand this text already present, reflecting the conclusions of both reviews:
A 2016 review did not support a clear link between celiac disease and ADHD, and stated that routine screening for celiac disease in people with ADHD and the use of a gluten-free diet as standard ADHD treatment are discouraged.(127) 127. PMID 26825336
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 14:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This section doesn't seem to address society as a cause very well. It just outlines why some people might think they have adhd when they don't or why they might try to get a diagnosis without having symptoms. Maybe it's just poor writing or poor reading on my behalf but in my opinion, it's badly sectioned and should be moved or edited.
What do you think? Luxorbostian 00:24, 01 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is all unsourced:
Diagnosis is usually done in a two step process. A screening tool is used to screen a larger population. A diagnostic test is applied thereafter.
There are a number of validated questionnaires that may be used for screening. Some of them are:
Common factors across rating scales are:
Semi structured
Structured
-- Jytdog ( talk) 20:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I recently changed some things but wasn't too familiar with the rule process so I apologize for that. My laptop's dead ATM so I'm on mobile and getting sources are hard atm, but the wikipedia page puts too much emphasis on ADHD in children although it is recently believed to be a chronic condition by experts that usually continues into adulthood.. Adhd affects both children and adults. I personally think saying adhd is considered to be (what it says now) overlooks much of the symptoms in adults, and also in women (women's are seen as being less hyperactive than men), and is not as specific as it could be. Instead of saying "the behavior may be deemed inappropriate for someone their age" is from an expert consensus a very narrow way to look at issues with planning, problem solving, emotional regulation, and inhibition control. Most also agree that it isn't an issue of having less attention, but rather an issue in controlling attention (it's easy to look up "hyperfocus" and read about it, which is why children can focus on tasks they find interesting, but usually this focus is extreme, which leads into self regulation issues buts that a whole other topic too) I would like to hear what you guys think and if you agree or think it should be changed to. Jennyalpin ( talk) 21:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a separate disorder though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyalpin ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Following a discussion at talk:Adderall, I made these revisions to the amphetamine article to cover the effect of long-term stimulant therapy on long-term ADHD-related functional outcomes. The systematic review that cited these statements also covers the effects of behavioral therapy and combination therapy on functional outcomes (effect sizes are stated in the text of the review; the proportion of improved functional outcomes within each outcome domain for each treatment type is summarized in this figure).
Is this topic (i.e., the effect of behavioral, pharmacological, and combination treatment on long-term functional outcomes in ADHD individuals) something that people think is also worth covering in the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Management section of this article? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 02:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently we say:
"It is characterized by problems paying attention, excessive activity, or difficulty controlling behavior which is not appropriate for a person's age. [1] [2]
The NIH lists three key symptoms "inattention" which equals problems paying attention, hyperactivity which means excessive activity, and impulsivity that means "difficulty controlling behavior".
The DSM5 says "to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level" that supports "which is not appropriate for a person's age"
So well supported.
References
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Are required to be present before a person is somewhere between 6 and 12 years old (depending on the definition used). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Thanks for reaching out. Since I am not native English speaker, my English is not as good as yours, I hope you can understand! Thank you! ^_^
I, as an ADHD patient, when I look back my life, just can't tolerate such kind of statement. Besides, I am afraid that the citations attached to the statement are out-of-date, which can't truly reflect the present situation. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
In the "Genetics" section it is suggested that ADHD may be advantageous to people in survival situaions - quicker response to danger etc, but the source cited is purely speculative and has no basis in any research. I think this should be cleared up as it is very misleading to suggest that what for the most part seems to be a disability is some how a gift waiting to be realised. Too many people talk about hyperfocus as though not being able to switch tracks and actually work productively is evidence of some kind of super human ability and this "Hunter vs Farmer" notion feeds into this. If indeed there is evidence of increased ability under certain circumstances then by all means, the case can be made, but so far it is entirely in the realm of speculation. If there is any evidence that the impulsivity associated with ADHD in every day situations contributes to improved responsiveness in high stress situations I would like to see it!
Is there any update on the prognosis section? Thx. -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The proportion of children meeting criteria for ADHD drops by about half in the three years following the diagnosis and this occurs regardless of treatments used.[191][192] ADHD persists into adulthood in about 30–50% of cases.[20] Those affected are likely to develop coping mechanisms as they mature, thus compensating to some extent for their previous symptoms.[29]
-- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Some conditions (such as, " Turner's syndrome", and acne) can be diagnosed accurately and scientifically, completely without regard to (that is, without the decision or "results" depending upon) the "persuasion" (i.e., the opinions) of the professional who is responsible for evaluating the symptoms of the person [called the "patient"] and for making a decision about a diagnosis.
Something that I read recently about ADHD surprised me. (The fact that it is ["alleged" to be] true was not what surprised me. What surprised me was the fact that it it was 'stated' in black and white, in a professional journal ... and quoted in a "popular press" [or "popular psychology"] article.)
Here is what I was 'considering' adding to the article about ADHD:
According to a statement from a 2007 letter to the editor [obj-T 1] in The American Journal of Psychiatry that was quoted or "referenced" in "Causes for the Explosion of the ADHD Diagnosis" [obj-T 2], [quote:] "[T]here is no objective test for ADHD".
That anthology ("Causes for the Explosion of the ADHD Diagnosis") was, in turn, found via a link to it from "ADHD in the News 06-29-17" [obj-T 3].
However, before going ahead, I thought it might be appropriate to get some comments here (first), from those who are more familiar with this article, and with this topic, and with the customs of the several projects listed on the header of the "Talk:" page ... such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology etc.
Any comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Given that there is no objective test for ADHD, it's reasonable to wonder if the true prevalence of ADHD is rising to this extraordinary extent, or whether it is being overdiagnosed. Keep in mind that the prevalence of ADHD in other developed countries is consistently estimated in the 5%-7% range—casting further doubt on the 11% figure in the U.S. (Polanczyk et al, Am J Psychiatry 2007;164(6):942–948).
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
We say in the lead:
In the body we say "ADHD is diagnosed by an assessment of a person's childhood behavioral and mental development, including ruling out the effects of drugs, medications and other medical or psychiatric problems as explanations for the symptoms.[57] It often takes into account feedback from parents and teachers[9] with most diagnoses begun after a teacher raises concerns.[94] It may be viewed as the extreme end of one or more continuous human traits found in all people.[120] Whether someone responds to medications does not confirm or rule out the diagnosis. As imaging studies of the brain do not give consistent results between individuals, they are only used for research purposes and not diagnosis."
I think currently we provide a good overview. There are many many diseases for which there is no concrete test. For example no test perfectly separates bacterial and viral pneumonia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Great question Mike Schwartz, therefore the diagnosis of ADHD is mostly based on anecdotal evidence from teachers and parents. Strange how anecdotal evidence is allowed to make diagnosis but not to persuade scientific consensus.-- Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Why does this statement need four citations, and why is one of the citations from 2009? SandyGeorgia ( Talk)
Why does this sentence need three citations, and why is one of them from 2008?
Why does this require three citations? Since all of them are well over ten years old, it seems the matter is settled and one citation should suffice.
Why three citations, all at least 10 years old?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The body of the article says:
The article does not say how they are defining severe. Also, the entire sentence is:
oddly cited to a 2009 Canadian source, which does not inspire confidence that it is the most recent NICE guideline. Futher, the lead says:
which uses "British" while the body says "United Kingdom", and is curiously sourced to NICE. Could the British/UK, definition of severe, and correct sourcing be sorted? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The lead says:
which leads the reader to expect that the DSM is looser in diagnosis than the ICD, but the article doesn't provide an adequate sorting of that for the novice reader. (To be resolved in 2018 ICD-11 hopefully, but a brief explanation here would serve the reader well.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to do this because I'm not an expert (in ADHD or Wikipedia) but rather than having the main ADHD page focus on children with occasional references to adults, I think it should be rewritten to apply to any age group, since both children and adults can have ADHD. The fact that the main ADHD article focuses on children means that the page is portraying an incomplete view of ADHD, which does a disservice to adults with ADHD.
I propose that this article be age-generalized, with child-specific information being moved to a new "ADHD in Children" article, just as there's one for ADHD in Adults right now. Then the main ADHD article can have prominent "See Also" links to both of these articles.
63.225.137.32 ( talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The CDC says 1% of children with ADHD have Tourette syndrome. [2] That's the same as the prevalance for TS generally. This article says:
That text is not supported by the cited source, and is there not a higher quality, recent secondary review on this at any rate? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Editors,
I am looking to copy edit, add the sections Neurofeedback, as well as Positive Thinking and Mentorship in Schools (last heading all as one idea), which would be under the Management section of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (section). I understand that these ideas are mentioned briefly under Behavioral therapy, but I feel they add to the medical information presented and should be talked about due to significance. I hope that it would also benefit readers so they can quickly obtain that information. I have several sources that add credible information, but may be hard for others to access due to journal subscriptions. I welcome any recommendations that add to the two topics or anything that needs to added or updated to the page. Based on the response I will be more than happy to add the current sources I have found. my edit.
--Thanks Again-- Devon Cosgrove ( talk . contribs). 8:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate some feedback on my edit, or if you have any other suggestions on how to use this review. The PMID is not out yet, I added the citation with the DOI.
Thank you! JenOttawa ( talk) 01:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
attention-deficit-dis-instruction is a branch of ADHD were the effected can not obey simple instructions it appears you still do not possess the same instincts I do and when you possess the same instincts come and face me then so you just could not do it could not obey instructions and this is how you come to me without confidence. 2001:558:6012:1B:6534:F271:5C4:FA60 ( talk) 14:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
"Underdosing of stimulants can occur and result in a lack of response or later loss of effectiveness.[171] This is particularly common in adolescents and adults as approved dosing is based on school-aged children, causing some practitioners to use weight based or benefit based off-label dosing instead.[172][173][174]"
This part is suspicious cause I saw there were maximum daily doses of stimulants for adults written in labels of respective medications recently updated and approved by the FDA in the DailyMed website. I don't have time to read the citations supporting that said part above, therefore I would like to raise my suspicion here. Thanks. -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move. bd2412 T 03:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder → Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder – The spelling "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" is confusing (attention disorder of deficit hyperactivity?). Wipur ( talk) 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Educational assignments
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: AlexLambright, Jessicasener.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alope13. Peer reviewers: Kpaon1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Adolescents and adults tend to develop coping skills which make up for some or all of their impairments."
Used ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957278/
I believe this should be deleted as it goes against the definition of ADHD (impairment defines disorder). There is also no source for this sentence in the source. So even in any case, a new ref is needed. At present it only says: "There is a high probability of co-morbid disorders, as well as the likelihood that the adult with ADHD has developed coping mechanisms to compensate for his or her impairment." I think that's too vague. -- NorthernNights ( talk) 07:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed source and added template "citation needed".-- NorthernNights ( talk) 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 20 December 2018 (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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
@
Doc James:
The term “biomarker”, a portmanteau of “biological marker”, refers to a broad subcategory of medical signs – that is, objective indications of medical state observed from outside the patient – which can be measured accurately and reproducibly. Medical signs stand in contrast to medical symptoms, which are limited to those indications of health or illness perceived by patients themselves.
— What are Biomarkers? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078627/
This section should really be placed under signs/symptoms since that's the section/topic to which those ADHD biomarkers are most relevant. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
"serum CK" is also neither a sign nor a symptom in how the general population uses the words. It often fits under diagnosis. In other conditions it would fit under research if it is in its very early stages. Have asked for further input at WPMED. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I would put material on biomarkers in a research section. These aren't used in clinical practice except maybe by hardcore biological psychiatrists or researchers in tertiary institutions. The article itself says, "Although the results of our statistically significant meta-analyses are promising, when considering the potential utility of biomarkers, one must address not only the statistical significance of effects, but also whether the magnitude of the effect will translate into a clinically useful measure." To be honest, research will get all excited by this stuff and ignore studies on childhood adversity/trauma which show huge increases in incidence of all mental illnesses. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It supports putting the content under research.- ROFL. That's a funny joke; it's almost like you were intentionally pulling that statement out of your ass to support your argument and ignoring the text which is underlined, bolded, and in enlarged font in the quote box. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 02:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I support inclusion of "Biomarker research" as a sub-heading at the end of the Diagnosis section, I think this will address everybody's concerns. M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on the matter:
Extended content
|
---|
Medical researchers who actively study addiction have criticized the DSM classification of addiction for being flawed and involving arbitrary diagnostic criteria. [1] Writing in 2013, the director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health discussed the invalidity of the DSM-5's classification of mental disorders: [2]
References
|
. Hm. So a disease biomarker is not relevant to medicine, but rather to scientific research. It wouldn't go in the Signs or the Diagnostics section... 02:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This shouldn't be under the cause section, but instead under the "Society and culture" section if at all. Upon first glance of their Wikipedia article it appears they believe all mental disorders are invented rather than discovered, so perhaps it is completely undue weight to mention his opinion in this article at all.
This section has too much info that should be presented in the "Management" section if at all.
Considering this is a GA, and that earlier in the section it is stated that "With the DSM-IV criteria a diagnosis of ADHD is 3–4 times more likely than with the ICD-10 criteria", there should be more description of the ICD-10 than it's symptoms being analogous to those of a similar disorder in the DSM, which is true in general.
Should probably be moved to the research section for reasons analogous to those given in the above talk page section, i.e. it doesn't appear anything in that section is actually routinely employed in managing ADHD, although it is actively researched.
Thoughts? M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 07:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"Upon first glance of their Wikipedia article it appears they believe all mental disorders are invented rather than discovered."
In daily usage, ADD refers to "attention deficit disorder" as a separate (though related) syndrome. I've added the three subtypes to the lead, as an iad for those people who are looking for info specifically on ADD; they most likely won't be searching for "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive," nor have the patience to find out that that's the link they're looking for... And after all, that's the group that's most likely to be looking for info, so a consumer-friendly approach may be quite welcome here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate ADD page. In practise ADD and ADHD are two different things, with very different implications. I don't agree that most people use the term interchangeably, far from it in fact. - Anonymous coward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.149.77.58 ( talk) 13:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We have two 2016 systematic reviews published on the same journal, Journal of Attention Disorders.
One concludes (Jan 2016):
PMID 26825336 "Up till now, there is no conclusive evidence for a relationship between ADHD and CD. Therefore, it is not advised to perform routine screening of CD when assessing ADHD (and vice versa) or to implement GFD as a standard treatment in ADHD. Nevertheless, the possibility of untreated CD predisposing to ADHD-like behavior should be kept in mind. ... It is possible that in untreated patients with CD, neurologic symptoms such as chronic fatigue, inattention, pain, and headache could predispose patients to ADHD-like behavior (mainly symptoms of inattentive type), which may be alleviated after GFD treatment."
and the other one concludes (Sep 2016):
PMID 27664125 "We found a consistent association between aADHD and increased risk of obesity, sleep disorders, and asthma. Associations were also consistent for migraine and celiac disease."
I would like to know your opinions about how we should reword or expand this text already present, reflecting the conclusions of both reviews:
A 2016 review did not support a clear link between celiac disease and ADHD, and stated that routine screening for celiac disease in people with ADHD and the use of a gluten-free diet as standard ADHD treatment are discouraged.(127) 127. PMID 26825336
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 14:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This section doesn't seem to address society as a cause very well. It just outlines why some people might think they have adhd when they don't or why they might try to get a diagnosis without having symptoms. Maybe it's just poor writing or poor reading on my behalf but in my opinion, it's badly sectioned and should be moved or edited.
What do you think? Luxorbostian 00:24, 01 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is all unsourced:
Diagnosis is usually done in a two step process. A screening tool is used to screen a larger population. A diagnostic test is applied thereafter.
There are a number of validated questionnaires that may be used for screening. Some of them are:
Common factors across rating scales are:
Semi structured
Structured
-- Jytdog ( talk) 20:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I recently changed some things but wasn't too familiar with the rule process so I apologize for that. My laptop's dead ATM so I'm on mobile and getting sources are hard atm, but the wikipedia page puts too much emphasis on ADHD in children although it is recently believed to be a chronic condition by experts that usually continues into adulthood.. Adhd affects both children and adults. I personally think saying adhd is considered to be (what it says now) overlooks much of the symptoms in adults, and also in women (women's are seen as being less hyperactive than men), and is not as specific as it could be. Instead of saying "the behavior may be deemed inappropriate for someone their age" is from an expert consensus a very narrow way to look at issues with planning, problem solving, emotional regulation, and inhibition control. Most also agree that it isn't an issue of having less attention, but rather an issue in controlling attention (it's easy to look up "hyperfocus" and read about it, which is why children can focus on tasks they find interesting, but usually this focus is extreme, which leads into self regulation issues buts that a whole other topic too) I would like to hear what you guys think and if you agree or think it should be changed to. Jennyalpin ( talk) 21:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a separate disorder though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyalpin ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Following a discussion at talk:Adderall, I made these revisions to the amphetamine article to cover the effect of long-term stimulant therapy on long-term ADHD-related functional outcomes. The systematic review that cited these statements also covers the effects of behavioral therapy and combination therapy on functional outcomes (effect sizes are stated in the text of the review; the proportion of improved functional outcomes within each outcome domain for each treatment type is summarized in this figure).
Is this topic (i.e., the effect of behavioral, pharmacological, and combination treatment on long-term functional outcomes in ADHD individuals) something that people think is also worth covering in the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Management section of this article? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 02:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently we say:
"It is characterized by problems paying attention, excessive activity, or difficulty controlling behavior which is not appropriate for a person's age. [1] [2]
The NIH lists three key symptoms "inattention" which equals problems paying attention, hyperactivity which means excessive activity, and impulsivity that means "difficulty controlling behavior".
The DSM5 says "to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level" that supports "which is not appropriate for a person's age"
So well supported.
References
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Are required to be present before a person is somewhere between 6 and 12 years old (depending on the definition used). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Thanks for reaching out. Since I am not native English speaker, my English is not as good as yours, I hope you can understand! Thank you! ^_^
I, as an ADHD patient, when I look back my life, just can't tolerate such kind of statement. Besides, I am afraid that the citations attached to the statement are out-of-date, which can't truly reflect the present situation. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
In the "Genetics" section it is suggested that ADHD may be advantageous to people in survival situaions - quicker response to danger etc, but the source cited is purely speculative and has no basis in any research. I think this should be cleared up as it is very misleading to suggest that what for the most part seems to be a disability is some how a gift waiting to be realised. Too many people talk about hyperfocus as though not being able to switch tracks and actually work productively is evidence of some kind of super human ability and this "Hunter vs Farmer" notion feeds into this. If indeed there is evidence of increased ability under certain circumstances then by all means, the case can be made, but so far it is entirely in the realm of speculation. If there is any evidence that the impulsivity associated with ADHD in every day situations contributes to improved responsiveness in high stress situations I would like to see it!
Is there any update on the prognosis section? Thx. -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The proportion of children meeting criteria for ADHD drops by about half in the three years following the diagnosis and this occurs regardless of treatments used.[191][192] ADHD persists into adulthood in about 30–50% of cases.[20] Those affected are likely to develop coping mechanisms as they mature, thus compensating to some extent for their previous symptoms.[29]
-- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Some conditions (such as, " Turner's syndrome", and acne) can be diagnosed accurately and scientifically, completely without regard to (that is, without the decision or "results" depending upon) the "persuasion" (i.e., the opinions) of the professional who is responsible for evaluating the symptoms of the person [called the "patient"] and for making a decision about a diagnosis.
Something that I read recently about ADHD surprised me. (The fact that it is ["alleged" to be] true was not what surprised me. What surprised me was the fact that it it was 'stated' in black and white, in a professional journal ... and quoted in a "popular press" [or "popular psychology"] article.)
Here is what I was 'considering' adding to the article about ADHD:
According to a statement from a 2007 letter to the editor [obj-T 1] in The American Journal of Psychiatry that was quoted or "referenced" in "Causes for the Explosion of the ADHD Diagnosis" [obj-T 2], [quote:] "[T]here is no objective test for ADHD".
That anthology ("Causes for the Explosion of the ADHD Diagnosis") was, in turn, found via a link to it from "ADHD in the News 06-29-17" [obj-T 3].
However, before going ahead, I thought it might be appropriate to get some comments here (first), from those who are more familiar with this article, and with this topic, and with the customs of the several projects listed on the header of the "Talk:" page ... such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology etc.
Any comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Given that there is no objective test for ADHD, it's reasonable to wonder if the true prevalence of ADHD is rising to this extraordinary extent, or whether it is being overdiagnosed. Keep in mind that the prevalence of ADHD in other developed countries is consistently estimated in the 5%-7% range—casting further doubt on the 11% figure in the U.S. (Polanczyk et al, Am J Psychiatry 2007;164(6):942–948).
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
We say in the lead:
In the body we say "ADHD is diagnosed by an assessment of a person's childhood behavioral and mental development, including ruling out the effects of drugs, medications and other medical or psychiatric problems as explanations for the symptoms.[57] It often takes into account feedback from parents and teachers[9] with most diagnoses begun after a teacher raises concerns.[94] It may be viewed as the extreme end of one or more continuous human traits found in all people.[120] Whether someone responds to medications does not confirm or rule out the diagnosis. As imaging studies of the brain do not give consistent results between individuals, they are only used for research purposes and not diagnosis."
I think currently we provide a good overview. There are many many diseases for which there is no concrete test. For example no test perfectly separates bacterial and viral pneumonia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Great question Mike Schwartz, therefore the diagnosis of ADHD is mostly based on anecdotal evidence from teachers and parents. Strange how anecdotal evidence is allowed to make diagnosis but not to persuade scientific consensus.-- Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Why does this statement need four citations, and why is one of the citations from 2009? SandyGeorgia ( Talk)
Why does this sentence need three citations, and why is one of them from 2008?
Why does this require three citations? Since all of them are well over ten years old, it seems the matter is settled and one citation should suffice.
Why three citations, all at least 10 years old?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The body of the article says:
The article does not say how they are defining severe. Also, the entire sentence is:
oddly cited to a 2009 Canadian source, which does not inspire confidence that it is the most recent NICE guideline. Futher, the lead says:
which uses "British" while the body says "United Kingdom", and is curiously sourced to NICE. Could the British/UK, definition of severe, and correct sourcing be sorted? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The lead says:
which leads the reader to expect that the DSM is looser in diagnosis than the ICD, but the article doesn't provide an adequate sorting of that for the novice reader. (To be resolved in 2018 ICD-11 hopefully, but a brief explanation here would serve the reader well.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to do this because I'm not an expert (in ADHD or Wikipedia) but rather than having the main ADHD page focus on children with occasional references to adults, I think it should be rewritten to apply to any age group, since both children and adults can have ADHD. The fact that the main ADHD article focuses on children means that the page is portraying an incomplete view of ADHD, which does a disservice to adults with ADHD.
I propose that this article be age-generalized, with child-specific information being moved to a new "ADHD in Children" article, just as there's one for ADHD in Adults right now. Then the main ADHD article can have prominent "See Also" links to both of these articles.
63.225.137.32 ( talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The CDC says 1% of children with ADHD have Tourette syndrome. [2] That's the same as the prevalance for TS generally. This article says:
That text is not supported by the cited source, and is there not a higher quality, recent secondary review on this at any rate? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Editors,
I am looking to copy edit, add the sections Neurofeedback, as well as Positive Thinking and Mentorship in Schools (last heading all as one idea), which would be under the Management section of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (section). I understand that these ideas are mentioned briefly under Behavioral therapy, but I feel they add to the medical information presented and should be talked about due to significance. I hope that it would also benefit readers so they can quickly obtain that information. I have several sources that add credible information, but may be hard for others to access due to journal subscriptions. I welcome any recommendations that add to the two topics or anything that needs to added or updated to the page. Based on the response I will be more than happy to add the current sources I have found. my edit.
--Thanks Again-- Devon Cosgrove ( talk . contribs). 8:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate some feedback on my edit, or if you have any other suggestions on how to use this review. The PMID is not out yet, I added the citation with the DOI.
Thank you! JenOttawa ( talk) 01:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
attention-deficit-dis-instruction is a branch of ADHD were the effected can not obey simple instructions it appears you still do not possess the same instincts I do and when you possess the same instincts come and face me then so you just could not do it could not obey instructions and this is how you come to me without confidence. 2001:558:6012:1B:6534:F271:5C4:FA60 ( talk) 14:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
"Underdosing of stimulants can occur and result in a lack of response or later loss of effectiveness.[171] This is particularly common in adolescents and adults as approved dosing is based on school-aged children, causing some practitioners to use weight based or benefit based off-label dosing instead.[172][173][174]"
This part is suspicious cause I saw there were maximum daily doses of stimulants for adults written in labels of respective medications recently updated and approved by the FDA in the DailyMed website. I don't have time to read the citations supporting that said part above, therefore I would like to raise my suspicion here. Thanks. -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move. bd2412 T 03:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder → Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder – The spelling "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" is confusing (attention disorder of deficit hyperactivity?). Wipur ( talk) 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Educational assignments
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: AlexLambright, Jessicasener.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alope13. Peer reviewers: Kpaon1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Adolescents and adults tend to develop coping skills which make up for some or all of their impairments."
Used ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957278/
I believe this should be deleted as it goes against the definition of ADHD (impairment defines disorder). There is also no source for this sentence in the source. So even in any case, a new ref is needed. At present it only says: "There is a high probability of co-morbid disorders, as well as the likelihood that the adult with ADHD has developed coping mechanisms to compensate for his or her impairment." I think that's too vague. -- NorthernNights ( talk) 07:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed source and added template "citation needed".-- NorthernNights ( talk) 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)