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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
The NIMH gives "People with ADHD show an ongoing pattern of three different types of symptoms: Difficulty paying attention (inattention), Being overactive (hyperactivity), Acting without thinking (impulsivity)"
This has been summarized as "Problems paying attention, excessive activity, difficulty controlling behavior"
This is much better IMO than "inattention and hyperfocus, hyperactivity, emotional dysregulation, excessive mind wandering, behavioural self-regulation"
I am not even sure what "behavioural self-regulation" implies... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The terminology of the new text is overly complicated. The prior wording was supported both by the DSM5 and the NIMH. Thus restored it.
How is the DSM5 "not common symptomatic terminology anymore". Additionally ADHD is more common in children. The EU source you have used is about adults. We have an article specifically for adults Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"differences in executive function to other people" is not very specific and is very poorly understood. The prior text was better. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I firmly think that inattention > difficulties with attention hyperactivity is better than dificulty controling behaviour. People with ADHD that i've treated prefer the french/ spanish terms "troubles with attention and or hyperactivity". cos they dont want to be "disordered". We can destigmatise this page and still be in wiki rules. what do we think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The EU consensus statement does that for a reason. Because it isnt a deficit of attention, it is poorly regulated attention. and sometimes, when well managed, their hyperfocus achieves things (hit and miss admittedly). Its the latest consensus statement and it is very well worded and i think we should follow it, cos its definitely wikipedia rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Changed the first few paragraphs. Many citations, and the EU consensus statement (admittedly adult) - in my experience as a clinician and as a patient. The emotional dysregulation is the most profound thing for us neurodiverse people, theres no current meds that help with it proven scientifically. But we have to have emotional dysregulation in some form in the start of the wiki article, its not just a supporting feature. It is the main horribly complex symptom that we can actually legitimise scientifically, solely cos of the EU consensus statement for wiki. and as we know, without access to doctors like @ Doc james: or myself, just reading these things when they are proven can be lifechanging, just knowing theres a name for what youre feeling. Thanks, pete E.3 ( talk) 13:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
ADHD is a mental disorder of the neurodevelopmental type. Not sure why the fact that it was a mental disorder was hidden? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Someone has cut without justification a sectional fix and an addition that I made to this page. This paragraph in particular has proven contentious, it needs absolutely to stand:
Many successful or well-known individuals such as the chef/entrepeneur Jamie Oliver and the athlete Michael Phelps have publicly stated in written or video interviews that they are diagnosed or self-diagnosed as ADHD sufferers and that the associated collection of traits has been influential in their careers, with impulsivity therefore appearing as creativity and a lack of attention to others being susceptible to presentation as a strong and independent individual character.
I am accustomed to scientific writing however for wikipedia we need to remember that a general audience will be reading, in particular the ADD page will be read by newly diagnosed sufferers, often kids. For them to understand the disorder and the behaviours associated with it examples of actual people that they have heard of or can easily read further about should be valuable. The fact that a highly decorated olympic athlete, in particular, is happy to acknowledge being affected by the condition is valuable information that can help an ADHD sufferer or parent avoid a sense of defeatism in relation to the condition. If someone is unhappy about the sources I have used they can google for some more: just deleting is not a positive contribution.
I re-organised the sectioning of the article becautse "Society" was a subsection of "Causes". This implicitly makes the claim that Society causes ADHD, a bold step and one which should be made explicitly if at all.
To have a separate section "And Society" or "In society" makes more sense, and also provides a home for the paragraph I added, which could be considered as a stub inviting further contributions. JoshBerryman ( talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to keep some of the discussion of Society as a "cause" also, then you can split the section and leave behind this social-construct stuff. Personally I don't think it holds water to claim that the idea of ADHD being definable as a social construct (everything is definable as a social construct if you have time on your hands) is the same as evidence of ADHD being caused by society but honestly I am focused at the moment on making this one tiny improvement of being permitted to mention the list of celebrity sufferers. Can you take care of this fix?
JoshBerryman ( talk) 13:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, to avoid triggering the edit-war script, somebody else should now make the addition (looking at you Wolfch) however I am happy to attempt it myself if nobody has anything further to add. Comments should be relevant to the content in this paragraph, below:
"""Many successful (or at least well-known) individuals such as the chef/entrepeneur Jamie Oliver and the athlete Michael Phelps have publicly stated in written or video interviews that they are diagnosed or self-diagnosed as ADHD sufferers and that the associated collection of traits has been beneficial to them in their careers, with impulsivity being reframed as creativity and a lack of attention to others being presented as a strong and independent individual character."""
Pokerplayer513 made the most recent deletion of the content, part of a wholesale reorganisation of the page, perhaps explaining the lack of justification made in that edit. Overall I notice that the page has been very "hot" lately, I am not sure what to do about trying to stabilise it at a high level of quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshBerryman ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally per WP:LEAD the lead is kept at 4 paragraphs. This was dropped in as the second paragraph yet we already have a paragraph discussing the diagnosis. And the fourth paragraph already discussing the controversy.
This looks like original research "The DSM-V does not address the emotional dysregulation of the ADHD diagnosis to the extent many expert opinions and studies indicate it should do."
Were does this reference support that? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28837827 Please provide exact quotes because I am not seeing it.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The diagnosis has consistently come under criticism for decades. In many experts opinion including the European 2019 consensus statement on ADHD, [1] it is a complex diagnosis and the emotional components of the disease, variously termed "emotional dysregulation" or other constructions, are consistently the hardest to treat as opposed to inattentive or hyperactive/impulsive behaviours which respond to medication consistently. The DSM-V does not address the emotional dysregulation of the ADHD diagnosis to the extent many expert opinions and studies indicate it should do. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
What does that mean? A mental disorder of the neurodevelopmental type. It's a neurodevelopmental disorder. Don't confuse people. ADHD is associated with Parkinson's disease. I would know I have them both(in my 30's) There is plenty of literature that supports my refs. Why are they being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.121.200 ( talk) 16:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Digital media use isn't really a condition in itself, is it? Maybe reformulate to something like "excessive digital media use" or "pathological digital media use" based on the contents of the article "Digital media use" links to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.153.63 ( talk) 18:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This text was trimmed in part because the refs were unclear and in part because they are likely primary.
" Antipsychotic medications represent an increasingly common treatment for ADHD. [39] [40] These medications are non-FDA indicated for ADHD, some evidence from clinical trials support a potential role in management of treatment-resistant ADHD. Antipsychotic medications improve severe behavior disturbances ADHD, such as aggression.[41] [42] However, they are only indicated after a patient does not respond to sufficient trials of both stimulant medication classes (methylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts). [41] [42] Further, unlike stimulants, antipsychotics have common and serious side effect profiles and associated adverse events, such as weight gain and even unexpected death. [43] [44] "
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This "While treatment may improve long-term outcomes, it does not get rid of negative outcomes entirely."
Was changed to
"While treatment may improve long-term outcomes, it does completely mitigate negative outcomes entirely."
Which of course changes the meaning entirely. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Where did you get this information? This is horrible and furthering the stigma that goes with ADHD in our society. Many people with ADHD are famouly genius, like Thomas Edison was according to Thomas Hartman and Jo Palladinno (Hartman, 2). Thanks! Hartmann, T. (2003)The Edison Gene: ADHD and the gift of the hunter child. Richmond, VT: Park Street Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeskalana77 ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
What text supports this "DEaths 5,500 (2015) [1]"?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933818301962#sec0110 seems to be saying it best. Some things that we need to consider is "long term efficacy is unclear, symptoms etc. I just changed the infobox and let the long time collaborators work on it with what they can find from the consensus statement if they agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs) 23:45 19 January 2019 (UTC)
-- Mladovesti ( talk) 08:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to add this information as I think it's quite important to know that criteria for ADHD has been widened from DSM-4 to to DSM-5 (which lead to colossal overdiagnosis of normal behaviour in kids) and it could be connected to conflict of interest of the DSM panel members.
Among the work group advisers of DSM-5 for ADHD, 78% disclosed links to drug companies as a potential financial conflict of interest. [1]
Best wishes, -- Mladovesti ( talk) 08:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Under prognosis, the article reads:
"
But learning disorders and executive function deficits do not seem to respond to ADHD medications. [1]
"
But the cited source mentions something like this only in a (to me) ambiguous diagram, figure 6 in the source, and elsewhere says:
"General cognitive ability is not responsive to ADHD pharmacotherapy; however, some data suggest that atomoxetine can modestly improve dyslexia and that stimulants and atomoxetine yield modest improvements in behavioural measures of executive functioning as well as performance on executive memory, reaction time and inhibitory control tasks."
My best understanding is that figure 6 in the source is talking specifically about executive functioning deficits from co-morbid conditions, and the last quotes section contradicts the article's claim about executive function deficits not responding to medication, but it seems very unclear. Kloddall ( talk) 01:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a number of qualified doctors that have an alternative view on ADHD. I think it is worth considering adding their conclusions in the last section. I did not want to add before talking, as I see this topic as very binary in whether it is a medical vs social condition. It seems important that the symptoms are very broad (18) and their only needs a small number to be diagnosed (5)?
Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D., The Myth of The ADHD Child -- https://www.institute4learning.com/resources/articles/why-i-believe-that-attention-deficit-disorder-is-a-myth/ Richard Saul, ADHD Does Not Exist -- https://time.com/25370/doctor-adhd-does-not-exist/
( 86.11.51.106 ( talk) 06:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC))
User:Nyttend backup what are you wondering about? Brain imaging shows differences in the parts of the brain that light up. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
ADHD is classified as a mental disorder. Not sure why this was removed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
"It impacts executive functioning related to organization and planning"
Not in this ref https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml
Here is the quote from the DSM 5 "Page 61 ADHD may exhibit cognitive problems on tests of attention, executive function, or memory"
Adjusted to match
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it orange or purple, or are both used? The Orange ribbon page and the List of awareness ribbons both need independent references for this. Anyone know of a source for the ribbon color that is independent from the groups that use them? Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it be beneficial to update some of the references? I recognized some references for a few academic books have new editions. It may not change the information but it might've changed since this is a growing research area. Ehunter0711 ( talk) 21:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Ehunter0711 15:23 1 October 2020 (MST)
Hi, I am very interested in creating an ADHD in Women article. A lot of research has been done on this topic and more girls/women are getting diagnosed. I feel that the importance of an article to summarise the research for women considering diagnosis or recently diagnosed and their friends/family (and let's be honest, their health care providers too) is increasing because the numbers of people to whom it is relevant is increasing. However, I've got some problems
I have also posted this to the psychiatry, psychology and autism WikiProjects.
Thoughts? Xurizuri ( talk) 03:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that the ICD-11 has been out for a while and changed to match the DSM-5 definition of ADHD, [2] the article should be updated to reflect that. I frankly don't know where to begin. And it raises the question of whether the separate ADD and hyperkinetic disorder pages will continue to be relevant for much longer, given that countries have begun switching from ICD-10 to ICD-11. (NB: for anyone that hasn't looked at ICD before, it doesn't really list symptoms in the way the DSM does - you're not just missing them) Xurizuri ( talk) 08:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There are more than 3 types of ADD (ADHD), for certain. It seems that there are 7 different types, including Overfocused ADD:
not "Inattentive", not necessarily Hyperactive nor Impulsive, thus, the DSM-5 does not include that type of disorder
Overfocused ADD expresses by trouble shifting attention, by nto loops of negative thoughts, inflexibility, etc, but can hyper focus in any matter of interest, and might superb memory skills, thus, might be the best student at school Ronmar24 ( talk) 20:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
What it says on the box. The article gets a lot of IP edits, most of which get reverted uncontroversially. Most are in good faith so it's not vandalism, but I would argue it is disruptive. Of the last 100 edits (since 10:18, 22 September 2020), 22 were by IPs or unconfirmed editors. 17 IP/unconfirmed edits have been removed fully, and only 5 were kept in at least some part. One IP started an edit war, and while I didn't check literally all of them, only two of the IP edits that I did check were obvious vandalism. If 17 uncontroversial reverts were done in approx 3 months, then that means that there's about one uncontroversial reverting of an IP edit per ever 5 days. I don't know how this compares to other pages, but imo it's not great given that this is a fairly high-trafficked health article and a lot of the edits are adding opinions, blog references, or disproven claims. ADHD gets more views than related conditions/symptoms autism spectrum, epilepsy, anxiety disorder, dyslexia, dementia, major depression and substance abuse, although slightly less than autism and substantially less than bipolar disorder.
The article also used to be semi-protected, but I can't find any mention on the archives to the protection being removed. I do think I figured out what happening though:
Another option besides semi-protection I believe would be pending changes protection. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There are several things wrong with this section.
This is false and the sources linked here are questionable at best. One of them is a paper on "positive aspects of ADHD among famous people" which mentions right off the bat that this data is NOT based on patients with ADHD, but on "famous people who potentially have ADHD were analyzed to understand better, the life-long progression of ADHD".
A second source linked is about entrepreneurs with ADHD symptoms, not diagnosed patients.
The review linked here does not say this at all, what it does say is that, "Most studies find evidence for increased divergent thinking for those with high ADHD scores (subclinical) but not for those with the disorder (clinical). The rates of creative abilities/achievements were high among both clinical and subclinical groups." AKA, again, not about patients diagnosed with the disorder. This review is linked multiple times in this section.
I find this incredibly misleading, this information is presented as fact, when the sources are faulty and these "positive aspects" have not been proven. I am hesitant to edit the article myself, because I am new to Wikipedia editing. I am curious if this can be rectified so the spread of this misinformation presented about the disorder can be limited.
Thank you. 3llieb0p ( talk) 20:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Highlights
•The link between divergent thinking and ADHD might depend on the impairment associated with ADHD. •ADHD is not associated with increased convergent thinking. •Psychostimulants do not have a negative effect on creativity as is often believed. •Neuroscience of ADHD and creativity points to overlapping mechanisms.
•Evidence on strengths of ADHD is relevant because this may lead to increasing the self-views and quality of life of people with ADHD.
I don't know how recent this addition was, but a section has been added to the Genetics heading about evolution and the hunter/gatherer theory. This theory has little basis and it contributes to the already highly stigmatised status of this disorder.
To quote Professor Stephen Faraone, acclaimed ADHD expert and president of the World Federation of ADHD: A study of genetic data shows that the frequency of genetic variants associated with ADHD has steadily decreased since Paleolithic times. This means that having ADHD has caused problems for people for tens of thousands of years. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/32451437/
I have gone ahead and removed the part where the infamous Ariaal study is quoted, as this is usually the only evidence given for the supposed benefits ADHD would have had during hunter/gatherer times, when the study barely even mentions attention and hyperactivity. The study itself wasn't even referenced.
If a section about Evolution is added, I feel it should also include information from the genomic analysis study above, and not just focus on the supposed positives ADHD would have had. It's misrepresentative. -- 3llieb0p ( talk) 12:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the following sentence is in the encyclopedic voice and has no citation:
This seems like it should say "Under the DSM" or "Currently, the accept medical definition requires" or something appropriate. It should also cite a source. Thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 05:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi! There's been enough reverts now that I think we need to switch to a discussion. In particular, I'll ping @ Medhekp: and @ Jr8825:. Firstly, please stop reverting edits for now, it will make the page unstable and make it harder to figure out what to do. So, I did the second edit, so I'll start things off by explaining why. It would be great if you could each talk through your own reasoning for edits too. For the edit regarding atomoxetine, I know a fair amount about how the medications work and how (relatively) new the research into ATX is, so I was surprised that there was a meta-analysis supporting it as the most effective. That would genuinely be very exciting. However, when I was reading the article, I noticed that the article doesn't really support that conclusion. It's more accurate to summarise as there's not enough low-risk-of-bias RCTs to be able to effectively compare treatments in this way. Further, it explains that while atomoxetine has some evidence of higher clinical response, it unfortunately consistently has a higher attrition rate. The article itself also has some red flags. Giving the moderate/high heterogeneity of results, it was arguably inappropriate to interpret any results of the network meta-analysis. It was definitely inappropriate that they included RCTs with a high risk of bias. They may also have broken other rules of NMAs, but they don't actually report on them - which is, again, inappropriate. For a description of the requirements for NMAs, please see NICE's Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. I also noticed that the article took many years to get published, which suggests that journals had issues with the article. The authors first performed the search in 2015, then again in 2017 and 2018. The review was not published until 2021. It should not take 6 years. The review also only included English-language articles, which is concerning for its cross-cultural applicability. All that doesn't make it a bad article necessarily (statistical analyses are rarely done or reported well), but it does mean that the article isn't able to knock stimulants off their very well-supported pedestal. All major English-language guidelines recognise stimulants as the most effective treatment. When I assessed the article, I concluded that it would be more appropriately used to update the paragraph which discusses atomoxetine. Please let me know your thoughts! And obviously, anyone else feel free to chime in. (P.S. I'm not always great at checking back on talk pages in a timely fashion, please ping me if you would like me to respond.) -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I leave notice of the discussion I've started on merging two articles related to this one over here! If you are a user experienced with merging articles, please feel free to lend a hand should the vote be in its favor. — VariousDeliciousCheeses ( talk) 09:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
this is incorrect!!!! I have ADHD because all symptoms show and I have to take medicine for it and everything like Cyproheptadine and Atomexetine and Vyvanse and Dexmethylhyphenidate and I am in school and am in Visions classes (basically the smart classes). In fact, most people in my classes would say I am the smartest one in the class. I don't know my IQ, but I do know that it's gotta be high. Therefore, this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:3E1E:2E00:FD49:4ECB:BEC9:F721 ( talk) 20:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This part of the lead seems like an overly severe summary of the sources which are cited, so I'm going to cut it down to just "there may be side effects". I've skim read the sources provided. The clause before, "treatment with stimulants is effective for at least 24 months", sums up the main criticism they have of stimulants, that their efficacy may decrease over time (the evidence is still weak, though). The other main criticism is their potential for abuse, which the articles say is somewhat reduced by new developments in medications. I can't see any discussion of negative side effects in the Arnold et al. source; the Wigal source says this: "Although relatively safe, both stimulants and atomoxetine have class-related warnings and contraindications and are associated with adverse effects that require consideration when prescribing ... although they are considered safe and effective drugs, they have the potential for abuse and may not be appropriate for some patients with comorbidities"
; Parker et al. focus on effectiveness over time, and only mention side effects briefly: "as a result of clinical (ie, adverse side effects) and personal decisions (ie, a desire to withdraw), some participants were unable to adhere to long-term treatment arms"
; the NICE source provided is outdated and has been superseded by the
2018 NICE guidance, section 1.7.20 summarises "considerations when prescribing ADHD medication" and I can't see anything indicating a high chance of "severe" side-effects, just an extended discussion about balancing risk-gain and careful management.
Jr8825 •
Talk 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm new, so hope I'm doing this right! There is quite a bit of info on exercise improving ADHD symptoms, but the 2021 World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement says this:
"A meta-analysis of ten studies (300 children) found exercise was associated with a moderate reduction in ADHD symptoms, but had no significant effect after adjusting for publication bias (Vysniauske et al., 2020). Another meta-analysis found no significant effect of exercise on either hyperactivity/impulsivity (4 studies, 227 participants) or inattention symptoms (6 studies, 277 participants), but significant reductions in anxiety and depression (5 studies, 164 participants) (Zang, 2019)."
I'd suggest changing the statements on exercise, or at least adding some reference to the above. RapturousRatling ( talk) 23:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KHR9.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Lancet2012":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
There is disagreement or controversy in certain regions or among certain people, regarding the nature or origin of ADHD. The article currently uses the term "behavioural issue" to describe the point of view of those who believe that ADHD is not a mental disorder; however, using the words "behavioural issue" for this purpose is fundamentally inaccurate. Everyone on both sides of the controversy already agrees that the whole thing is an issue of behaviour, because the symptom list is primarily a list of behaviours, and without those behaviours there would be little or nothing to discuss. The only people who can possibly see ADHD as NOT a behavioural issue are those who consider those behaviours normal, and therefore not an issue. Since everyone already (necessarily) believes ADHD is a behavioural issue if they believe it's an issue at all, the words "behavioural issue" cannot legitimately be used to distinguish one side of the controversy from the other. The question cannot be "Is it behaviour?", because no one can claim it isn't. The controversy is over the SOURCE of the behaviour, and it appears that the possible sources are "mental disorder" or "personal choice". TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder largely just replicates content in the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article. The diet page discusses 3 topics:
The diet article does expand on the food additives, but it does so with some possible original research and mostly non-MEDRS. There also isn't much more to say about diet outside of what is already on the diet article, and the extra information that does exist is actually already under Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Diet. Therefore, I propose that Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is merged into Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Diet. Very little (if any) content would need to be copied, so it would have almost no impact on the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 01:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it says: "Some individuals with ADHD also display difficulty regulating emotions and have executive dysfunction." It should be "Individuals with ADHD..." as these symptoms are part of ADHD, as the sidebar correctly lists them. There is no ADHD without executive dysfunction (some consider it *the* core deficit [2] [3]) and emotional dysregulation is a core symptom [4]. The word "some" is inaccurate. Perhaps it should even say "Core symptoms of ADHD also include..."
It already says in the article that ADHD comes from an impairment of executive functions: "The symptoms of ADHD arise from a deficiency in certain executive functions (e.g., attentional control, inhibitory control, and working memory)." The fourth citation of that also addresses it directly. I think the existing citations can serve to prove that these are core symptoms of ADHD, not just symptoms that "some" people with ADHD have.
It appears that it is also discussed in Russell Barkley's book for clinicians which I think should count as WP:MEDRS: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Fourth Edition: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment. I'd be interested in looking into that source more if people think it qualifies.
Megaman_en_m reverted the change.
References
Jhartzell42 ( talk) 01:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Jhartzell42 ( talk) 06:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342100049X?via%3Dihub Trantüte ( talk) 21:58, 12 August 2022 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
The NIMH gives "People with ADHD show an ongoing pattern of three different types of symptoms: Difficulty paying attention (inattention), Being overactive (hyperactivity), Acting without thinking (impulsivity)"
This has been summarized as "Problems paying attention, excessive activity, difficulty controlling behavior"
This is much better IMO than "inattention and hyperfocus, hyperactivity, emotional dysregulation, excessive mind wandering, behavioural self-regulation"
I am not even sure what "behavioural self-regulation" implies... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The terminology of the new text is overly complicated. The prior wording was supported both by the DSM5 and the NIMH. Thus restored it.
How is the DSM5 "not common symptomatic terminology anymore". Additionally ADHD is more common in children. The EU source you have used is about adults. We have an article specifically for adults Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"differences in executive function to other people" is not very specific and is very poorly understood. The prior text was better. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I firmly think that inattention > difficulties with attention hyperactivity is better than dificulty controling behaviour. People with ADHD that i've treated prefer the french/ spanish terms "troubles with attention and or hyperactivity". cos they dont want to be "disordered". We can destigmatise this page and still be in wiki rules. what do we think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The EU consensus statement does that for a reason. Because it isnt a deficit of attention, it is poorly regulated attention. and sometimes, when well managed, their hyperfocus achieves things (hit and miss admittedly). Its the latest consensus statement and it is very well worded and i think we should follow it, cos its definitely wikipedia rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Changed the first few paragraphs. Many citations, and the EU consensus statement (admittedly adult) - in my experience as a clinician and as a patient. The emotional dysregulation is the most profound thing for us neurodiverse people, theres no current meds that help with it proven scientifically. But we have to have emotional dysregulation in some form in the start of the wiki article, its not just a supporting feature. It is the main horribly complex symptom that we can actually legitimise scientifically, solely cos of the EU consensus statement for wiki. and as we know, without access to doctors like @ Doc james: or myself, just reading these things when they are proven can be lifechanging, just knowing theres a name for what youre feeling. Thanks, pete E.3 ( talk) 13:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
ADHD is a mental disorder of the neurodevelopmental type. Not sure why the fact that it was a mental disorder was hidden? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Someone has cut without justification a sectional fix and an addition that I made to this page. This paragraph in particular has proven contentious, it needs absolutely to stand:
Many successful or well-known individuals such as the chef/entrepeneur Jamie Oliver and the athlete Michael Phelps have publicly stated in written or video interviews that they are diagnosed or self-diagnosed as ADHD sufferers and that the associated collection of traits has been influential in their careers, with impulsivity therefore appearing as creativity and a lack of attention to others being susceptible to presentation as a strong and independent individual character.
I am accustomed to scientific writing however for wikipedia we need to remember that a general audience will be reading, in particular the ADD page will be read by newly diagnosed sufferers, often kids. For them to understand the disorder and the behaviours associated with it examples of actual people that they have heard of or can easily read further about should be valuable. The fact that a highly decorated olympic athlete, in particular, is happy to acknowledge being affected by the condition is valuable information that can help an ADHD sufferer or parent avoid a sense of defeatism in relation to the condition. If someone is unhappy about the sources I have used they can google for some more: just deleting is not a positive contribution.
I re-organised the sectioning of the article becautse "Society" was a subsection of "Causes". This implicitly makes the claim that Society causes ADHD, a bold step and one which should be made explicitly if at all.
To have a separate section "And Society" or "In society" makes more sense, and also provides a home for the paragraph I added, which could be considered as a stub inviting further contributions. JoshBerryman ( talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to keep some of the discussion of Society as a "cause" also, then you can split the section and leave behind this social-construct stuff. Personally I don't think it holds water to claim that the idea of ADHD being definable as a social construct (everything is definable as a social construct if you have time on your hands) is the same as evidence of ADHD being caused by society but honestly I am focused at the moment on making this one tiny improvement of being permitted to mention the list of celebrity sufferers. Can you take care of this fix?
JoshBerryman ( talk) 13:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, to avoid triggering the edit-war script, somebody else should now make the addition (looking at you Wolfch) however I am happy to attempt it myself if nobody has anything further to add. Comments should be relevant to the content in this paragraph, below:
"""Many successful (or at least well-known) individuals such as the chef/entrepeneur Jamie Oliver and the athlete Michael Phelps have publicly stated in written or video interviews that they are diagnosed or self-diagnosed as ADHD sufferers and that the associated collection of traits has been beneficial to them in their careers, with impulsivity being reframed as creativity and a lack of attention to others being presented as a strong and independent individual character."""
Pokerplayer513 made the most recent deletion of the content, part of a wholesale reorganisation of the page, perhaps explaining the lack of justification made in that edit. Overall I notice that the page has been very "hot" lately, I am not sure what to do about trying to stabilise it at a high level of quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshBerryman ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally per WP:LEAD the lead is kept at 4 paragraphs. This was dropped in as the second paragraph yet we already have a paragraph discussing the diagnosis. And the fourth paragraph already discussing the controversy.
This looks like original research "The DSM-V does not address the emotional dysregulation of the ADHD diagnosis to the extent many expert opinions and studies indicate it should do."
Were does this reference support that? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28837827 Please provide exact quotes because I am not seeing it.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The diagnosis has consistently come under criticism for decades. In many experts opinion including the European 2019 consensus statement on ADHD, [1] it is a complex diagnosis and the emotional components of the disease, variously termed "emotional dysregulation" or other constructions, are consistently the hardest to treat as opposed to inattentive or hyperactive/impulsive behaviours which respond to medication consistently. The DSM-V does not address the emotional dysregulation of the ADHD diagnosis to the extent many expert opinions and studies indicate it should do. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
What does that mean? A mental disorder of the neurodevelopmental type. It's a neurodevelopmental disorder. Don't confuse people. ADHD is associated with Parkinson's disease. I would know I have them both(in my 30's) There is plenty of literature that supports my refs. Why are they being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.121.200 ( talk) 16:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Digital media use isn't really a condition in itself, is it? Maybe reformulate to something like "excessive digital media use" or "pathological digital media use" based on the contents of the article "Digital media use" links to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.153.63 ( talk) 18:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This text was trimmed in part because the refs were unclear and in part because they are likely primary.
" Antipsychotic medications represent an increasingly common treatment for ADHD. [39] [40] These medications are non-FDA indicated for ADHD, some evidence from clinical trials support a potential role in management of treatment-resistant ADHD. Antipsychotic medications improve severe behavior disturbances ADHD, such as aggression.[41] [42] However, they are only indicated after a patient does not respond to sufficient trials of both stimulant medication classes (methylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts). [41] [42] Further, unlike stimulants, antipsychotics have common and serious side effect profiles and associated adverse events, such as weight gain and even unexpected death. [43] [44] "
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This "While treatment may improve long-term outcomes, it does not get rid of negative outcomes entirely."
Was changed to
"While treatment may improve long-term outcomes, it does completely mitigate negative outcomes entirely."
Which of course changes the meaning entirely. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Where did you get this information? This is horrible and furthering the stigma that goes with ADHD in our society. Many people with ADHD are famouly genius, like Thomas Edison was according to Thomas Hartman and Jo Palladinno (Hartman, 2). Thanks! Hartmann, T. (2003)The Edison Gene: ADHD and the gift of the hunter child. Richmond, VT: Park Street Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeskalana77 ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
What text supports this "DEaths 5,500 (2015) [1]"?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933818301962#sec0110 seems to be saying it best. Some things that we need to consider is "long term efficacy is unclear, symptoms etc. I just changed the infobox and let the long time collaborators work on it with what they can find from the consensus statement if they agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs) 23:45 19 January 2019 (UTC)
-- Mladovesti ( talk) 08:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to add this information as I think it's quite important to know that criteria for ADHD has been widened from DSM-4 to to DSM-5 (which lead to colossal overdiagnosis of normal behaviour in kids) and it could be connected to conflict of interest of the DSM panel members.
Among the work group advisers of DSM-5 for ADHD, 78% disclosed links to drug companies as a potential financial conflict of interest. [1]
Best wishes, -- Mladovesti ( talk) 08:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Under prognosis, the article reads:
"
But learning disorders and executive function deficits do not seem to respond to ADHD medications. [1]
"
But the cited source mentions something like this only in a (to me) ambiguous diagram, figure 6 in the source, and elsewhere says:
"General cognitive ability is not responsive to ADHD pharmacotherapy; however, some data suggest that atomoxetine can modestly improve dyslexia and that stimulants and atomoxetine yield modest improvements in behavioural measures of executive functioning as well as performance on executive memory, reaction time and inhibitory control tasks."
My best understanding is that figure 6 in the source is talking specifically about executive functioning deficits from co-morbid conditions, and the last quotes section contradicts the article's claim about executive function deficits not responding to medication, but it seems very unclear. Kloddall ( talk) 01:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a number of qualified doctors that have an alternative view on ADHD. I think it is worth considering adding their conclusions in the last section. I did not want to add before talking, as I see this topic as very binary in whether it is a medical vs social condition. It seems important that the symptoms are very broad (18) and their only needs a small number to be diagnosed (5)?
Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D., The Myth of The ADHD Child -- https://www.institute4learning.com/resources/articles/why-i-believe-that-attention-deficit-disorder-is-a-myth/ Richard Saul, ADHD Does Not Exist -- https://time.com/25370/doctor-adhd-does-not-exist/
( 86.11.51.106 ( talk) 06:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC))
User:Nyttend backup what are you wondering about? Brain imaging shows differences in the parts of the brain that light up. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
ADHD is classified as a mental disorder. Not sure why this was removed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
"It impacts executive functioning related to organization and planning"
Not in this ref https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml
Here is the quote from the DSM 5 "Page 61 ADHD may exhibit cognitive problems on tests of attention, executive function, or memory"
Adjusted to match
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it orange or purple, or are both used? The Orange ribbon page and the List of awareness ribbons both need independent references for this. Anyone know of a source for the ribbon color that is independent from the groups that use them? Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it be beneficial to update some of the references? I recognized some references for a few academic books have new editions. It may not change the information but it might've changed since this is a growing research area. Ehunter0711 ( talk) 21:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Ehunter0711 15:23 1 October 2020 (MST)
Hi, I am very interested in creating an ADHD in Women article. A lot of research has been done on this topic and more girls/women are getting diagnosed. I feel that the importance of an article to summarise the research for women considering diagnosis or recently diagnosed and their friends/family (and let's be honest, their health care providers too) is increasing because the numbers of people to whom it is relevant is increasing. However, I've got some problems
I have also posted this to the psychiatry, psychology and autism WikiProjects.
Thoughts? Xurizuri ( talk) 03:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that the ICD-11 has been out for a while and changed to match the DSM-5 definition of ADHD, [2] the article should be updated to reflect that. I frankly don't know where to begin. And it raises the question of whether the separate ADD and hyperkinetic disorder pages will continue to be relevant for much longer, given that countries have begun switching from ICD-10 to ICD-11. (NB: for anyone that hasn't looked at ICD before, it doesn't really list symptoms in the way the DSM does - you're not just missing them) Xurizuri ( talk) 08:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There are more than 3 types of ADD (ADHD), for certain. It seems that there are 7 different types, including Overfocused ADD:
not "Inattentive", not necessarily Hyperactive nor Impulsive, thus, the DSM-5 does not include that type of disorder
Overfocused ADD expresses by trouble shifting attention, by nto loops of negative thoughts, inflexibility, etc, but can hyper focus in any matter of interest, and might superb memory skills, thus, might be the best student at school Ronmar24 ( talk) 20:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
What it says on the box. The article gets a lot of IP edits, most of which get reverted uncontroversially. Most are in good faith so it's not vandalism, but I would argue it is disruptive. Of the last 100 edits (since 10:18, 22 September 2020), 22 were by IPs or unconfirmed editors. 17 IP/unconfirmed edits have been removed fully, and only 5 were kept in at least some part. One IP started an edit war, and while I didn't check literally all of them, only two of the IP edits that I did check were obvious vandalism. If 17 uncontroversial reverts were done in approx 3 months, then that means that there's about one uncontroversial reverting of an IP edit per ever 5 days. I don't know how this compares to other pages, but imo it's not great given that this is a fairly high-trafficked health article and a lot of the edits are adding opinions, blog references, or disproven claims. ADHD gets more views than related conditions/symptoms autism spectrum, epilepsy, anxiety disorder, dyslexia, dementia, major depression and substance abuse, although slightly less than autism and substantially less than bipolar disorder.
The article also used to be semi-protected, but I can't find any mention on the archives to the protection being removed. I do think I figured out what happening though:
Another option besides semi-protection I believe would be pending changes protection. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There are several things wrong with this section.
This is false and the sources linked here are questionable at best. One of them is a paper on "positive aspects of ADHD among famous people" which mentions right off the bat that this data is NOT based on patients with ADHD, but on "famous people who potentially have ADHD were analyzed to understand better, the life-long progression of ADHD".
A second source linked is about entrepreneurs with ADHD symptoms, not diagnosed patients.
The review linked here does not say this at all, what it does say is that, "Most studies find evidence for increased divergent thinking for those with high ADHD scores (subclinical) but not for those with the disorder (clinical). The rates of creative abilities/achievements were high among both clinical and subclinical groups." AKA, again, not about patients diagnosed with the disorder. This review is linked multiple times in this section.
I find this incredibly misleading, this information is presented as fact, when the sources are faulty and these "positive aspects" have not been proven. I am hesitant to edit the article myself, because I am new to Wikipedia editing. I am curious if this can be rectified so the spread of this misinformation presented about the disorder can be limited.
Thank you. 3llieb0p ( talk) 20:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Highlights
•The link between divergent thinking and ADHD might depend on the impairment associated with ADHD. •ADHD is not associated with increased convergent thinking. •Psychostimulants do not have a negative effect on creativity as is often believed. •Neuroscience of ADHD and creativity points to overlapping mechanisms.
•Evidence on strengths of ADHD is relevant because this may lead to increasing the self-views and quality of life of people with ADHD.
I don't know how recent this addition was, but a section has been added to the Genetics heading about evolution and the hunter/gatherer theory. This theory has little basis and it contributes to the already highly stigmatised status of this disorder.
To quote Professor Stephen Faraone, acclaimed ADHD expert and president of the World Federation of ADHD: A study of genetic data shows that the frequency of genetic variants associated with ADHD has steadily decreased since Paleolithic times. This means that having ADHD has caused problems for people for tens of thousands of years. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/32451437/
I have gone ahead and removed the part where the infamous Ariaal study is quoted, as this is usually the only evidence given for the supposed benefits ADHD would have had during hunter/gatherer times, when the study barely even mentions attention and hyperactivity. The study itself wasn't even referenced.
If a section about Evolution is added, I feel it should also include information from the genomic analysis study above, and not just focus on the supposed positives ADHD would have had. It's misrepresentative. -- 3llieb0p ( talk) 12:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the following sentence is in the encyclopedic voice and has no citation:
This seems like it should say "Under the DSM" or "Currently, the accept medical definition requires" or something appropriate. It should also cite a source. Thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 05:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi! There's been enough reverts now that I think we need to switch to a discussion. In particular, I'll ping @ Medhekp: and @ Jr8825:. Firstly, please stop reverting edits for now, it will make the page unstable and make it harder to figure out what to do. So, I did the second edit, so I'll start things off by explaining why. It would be great if you could each talk through your own reasoning for edits too. For the edit regarding atomoxetine, I know a fair amount about how the medications work and how (relatively) new the research into ATX is, so I was surprised that there was a meta-analysis supporting it as the most effective. That would genuinely be very exciting. However, when I was reading the article, I noticed that the article doesn't really support that conclusion. It's more accurate to summarise as there's not enough low-risk-of-bias RCTs to be able to effectively compare treatments in this way. Further, it explains that while atomoxetine has some evidence of higher clinical response, it unfortunately consistently has a higher attrition rate. The article itself also has some red flags. Giving the moderate/high heterogeneity of results, it was arguably inappropriate to interpret any results of the network meta-analysis. It was definitely inappropriate that they included RCTs with a high risk of bias. They may also have broken other rules of NMAs, but they don't actually report on them - which is, again, inappropriate. For a description of the requirements for NMAs, please see NICE's Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. I also noticed that the article took many years to get published, which suggests that journals had issues with the article. The authors first performed the search in 2015, then again in 2017 and 2018. The review was not published until 2021. It should not take 6 years. The review also only included English-language articles, which is concerning for its cross-cultural applicability. All that doesn't make it a bad article necessarily (statistical analyses are rarely done or reported well), but it does mean that the article isn't able to knock stimulants off their very well-supported pedestal. All major English-language guidelines recognise stimulants as the most effective treatment. When I assessed the article, I concluded that it would be more appropriately used to update the paragraph which discusses atomoxetine. Please let me know your thoughts! And obviously, anyone else feel free to chime in. (P.S. I'm not always great at checking back on talk pages in a timely fashion, please ping me if you would like me to respond.) -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I leave notice of the discussion I've started on merging two articles related to this one over here! If you are a user experienced with merging articles, please feel free to lend a hand should the vote be in its favor. — VariousDeliciousCheeses ( talk) 09:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
this is incorrect!!!! I have ADHD because all symptoms show and I have to take medicine for it and everything like Cyproheptadine and Atomexetine and Vyvanse and Dexmethylhyphenidate and I am in school and am in Visions classes (basically the smart classes). In fact, most people in my classes would say I am the smartest one in the class. I don't know my IQ, but I do know that it's gotta be high. Therefore, this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:3E1E:2E00:FD49:4ECB:BEC9:F721 ( talk) 20:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This part of the lead seems like an overly severe summary of the sources which are cited, so I'm going to cut it down to just "there may be side effects". I've skim read the sources provided. The clause before, "treatment with stimulants is effective for at least 24 months", sums up the main criticism they have of stimulants, that their efficacy may decrease over time (the evidence is still weak, though). The other main criticism is their potential for abuse, which the articles say is somewhat reduced by new developments in medications. I can't see any discussion of negative side effects in the Arnold et al. source; the Wigal source says this: "Although relatively safe, both stimulants and atomoxetine have class-related warnings and contraindications and are associated with adverse effects that require consideration when prescribing ... although they are considered safe and effective drugs, they have the potential for abuse and may not be appropriate for some patients with comorbidities"
; Parker et al. focus on effectiveness over time, and only mention side effects briefly: "as a result of clinical (ie, adverse side effects) and personal decisions (ie, a desire to withdraw), some participants were unable to adhere to long-term treatment arms"
; the NICE source provided is outdated and has been superseded by the
2018 NICE guidance, section 1.7.20 summarises "considerations when prescribing ADHD medication" and I can't see anything indicating a high chance of "severe" side-effects, just an extended discussion about balancing risk-gain and careful management.
Jr8825 •
Talk 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm new, so hope I'm doing this right! There is quite a bit of info on exercise improving ADHD symptoms, but the 2021 World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement says this:
"A meta-analysis of ten studies (300 children) found exercise was associated with a moderate reduction in ADHD symptoms, but had no significant effect after adjusting for publication bias (Vysniauske et al., 2020). Another meta-analysis found no significant effect of exercise on either hyperactivity/impulsivity (4 studies, 227 participants) or inattention symptoms (6 studies, 277 participants), but significant reductions in anxiety and depression (5 studies, 164 participants) (Zang, 2019)."
I'd suggest changing the statements on exercise, or at least adding some reference to the above. RapturousRatling ( talk) 23:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KHR9.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Lancet2012":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
There is disagreement or controversy in certain regions or among certain people, regarding the nature or origin of ADHD. The article currently uses the term "behavioural issue" to describe the point of view of those who believe that ADHD is not a mental disorder; however, using the words "behavioural issue" for this purpose is fundamentally inaccurate. Everyone on both sides of the controversy already agrees that the whole thing is an issue of behaviour, because the symptom list is primarily a list of behaviours, and without those behaviours there would be little or nothing to discuss. The only people who can possibly see ADHD as NOT a behavioural issue are those who consider those behaviours normal, and therefore not an issue. Since everyone already (necessarily) believes ADHD is a behavioural issue if they believe it's an issue at all, the words "behavioural issue" cannot legitimately be used to distinguish one side of the controversy from the other. The question cannot be "Is it behaviour?", because no one can claim it isn't. The controversy is over the SOURCE of the behaviour, and it appears that the possible sources are "mental disorder" or "personal choice". TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder largely just replicates content in the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article. The diet page discusses 3 topics:
The diet article does expand on the food additives, but it does so with some possible original research and mostly non-MEDRS. There also isn't much more to say about diet outside of what is already on the diet article, and the extra information that does exist is actually already under Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Diet. Therefore, I propose that Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is merged into Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Diet. Very little (if any) content would need to be copied, so it would have almost no impact on the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 01:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it says: "Some individuals with ADHD also display difficulty regulating emotions and have executive dysfunction." It should be "Individuals with ADHD..." as these symptoms are part of ADHD, as the sidebar correctly lists them. There is no ADHD without executive dysfunction (some consider it *the* core deficit [2] [3]) and emotional dysregulation is a core symptom [4]. The word "some" is inaccurate. Perhaps it should even say "Core symptoms of ADHD also include..."
It already says in the article that ADHD comes from an impairment of executive functions: "The symptoms of ADHD arise from a deficiency in certain executive functions (e.g., attentional control, inhibitory control, and working memory)." The fourth citation of that also addresses it directly. I think the existing citations can serve to prove that these are core symptoms of ADHD, not just symptoms that "some" people with ADHD have.
It appears that it is also discussed in Russell Barkley's book for clinicians which I think should count as WP:MEDRS: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Fourth Edition: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment. I'd be interested in looking into that source more if people think it qualifies.
Megaman_en_m reverted the change.
References
Jhartzell42 ( talk) 01:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Jhartzell42 ( talk) 06:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342100049X?via%3Dihub Trantüte ( talk) 21:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)