Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12u (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 31 October 2022 (→‎Requested move 14 October 2022: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 13, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 16, 2013Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Has anyone looked at incorporating this International Consensus Statement?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342100049X?via%3Dihub Trantüte (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting this, it sounds like a helpful source. Is there anything in the consensus statement that you think isn't properly reflected in the article? (The more specific the suggestions, the better!) Jr8825 • Talk 16:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adult ADHD statistics

In two places (including the lead) a questionably precise figure, 2.58%, is given for prevalence of adult ADHD (childhood onset), based on the estimate of a recent meta-analysis. This looks like a good source, but there are caveats: particularly the pooling of studies using different diagnostic criteria, and also variation between individual studies which the authors noted "could not be fully ruled out by a priori selected variables". If the childhood prevalence estimates are so broad (according to different diagnostic criteria) I find it hard to imagine there isn't the same level of uncertainty around adult ADHD & different diagnostic criteria. I'd be inclined to use a more explicit attributed statement, such as "a 2021 meta-analysis estimated a prevalence of 2.58%", or perhaps in the lead "an estimated prevalence of around 2.6%" or "around "2.5%" (in line with other sources). Additionally, the 2014 literature review also cited in the lead sentence provides a different figure, a range of 2.5-5%. Should we instead include a range, or does the meta-analysis unambiguously supersede this? Any thoughts welcome, & pinging @Xurizuri as I see they did some work on this in July. Jr8825 • Talk 17:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite is very reliable. They generally do a good job with significant figures, so it would be OK just to leave it as is at "2.58%"; perhaps 2.6% is too imprecise and 2.58% is too precise so they had to choose one or the other, both sub-optimal. But there is nothing wrong with an encyclopedia rounding "2.58%" to "2.6%" if for no other reason that it reads more colloquially. Now, given that there are other reliable sources within a range, it would probably be even better to cite the range, particularly as the range "2.5-5%" includes 2.58%. Unless you feel that the 2014 review is out of date or includes bad references. Or you could cite both, and pull text from the references to explain why there is a difference. A range can result from differences in the population studied (no uncertainty, just a different population) or diagnostic accuracy (uncertainty), or definition of ADHD (no uncertainty, just a different choice of definition). Jaredroach (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
concur w/ Jaredroach--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, I agree the study should be given a prominent position in the lead (I think 2.6% is adequate for the lead as all the other figures are rounded up to whole numbers, 2.58% makes sense in the body). Will take a closer look the literature review before deciding whether to add a range. If I remember correctly the meta-analysis didn't specifically mention or rebut earlier literature, but I'll need to check both carefully before making any changes. Jr8825 • Talk 18:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smummert1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brennam29 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work of Dr Russell Barkley and possibility ADHD is two separate disorders

The work of Dr Barkley and other experts seems to indicate that ADHD may in fact be two separate conditions that result from different mechanisms.

One of them has historically been called ADHD-PH (predominantly hyperactive).

The other has historically been called ADHD-PI (predominantly inattentive), as well as SCT (Sluggish Cognitive Tempo) and, in Dr Barkley's work, CDD (Concentration Deficit Disorder).

The hypothesis goes that stimulants are only effective on the first disorder and not the second because they are caused by different mechanisms.

I think such interesting ideas (being also supported by some experts) would serve the reader's awareness of current research. EditorPerson53 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source quality parenting style

The paragraph "Despite a popular myth, it does not appear to be related to any particular style of parenting or discipline" and the cited source [15] contain a suggestive nature and are poorly worded in my eyes. A single MD's opinion piece quoting polls does not suffice as a valid argumentative ground to call it a myth, especially if it's says at the beginning that causes are not known for sure. Suggesting a rewording like "A connection to a particular style of parenting or discipline appears to be debatable." 91.6.16.168 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence overall was unconstructive and the source (WebMD) far from good. An expert source - the CDC here - dismisses parenting as a factor. Zefr (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While enviormental factors such as parrenting styles can likely perpetuate symptoms in some cases, or even decrease the serverity of symptoms if done well; parenting styles definentaly dont cause adhd itself ( correct me if im wrong ) ¿V0id? {have a great day!} (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2022

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder → ADHD – Per WP:UCRN. "ADHD" is incidentally already a redirect to this page. In this article it is referred to as "ADHD" approx. 7 times more than "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder". Regarding WP:MEDTITLE, this is the recognised medical name (as an abbreviation). 12u (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — Per WP:MEDTITLE:
    • "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources"
    • "The article title is subject to the same sourcing standards as the article content. Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research."
    • "Diseases—The World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)"
Recognized authorities are in quite clear agreement as to what the actual scientific or recognized medical name is, and the name commonly used in the medical scientific literature reflects and supports that clear consensus. Garzfoth (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, suggest speedy closure: MEDRS sources universally refer to it as "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" followed by the abbreviation. The title should state clearly what the name is and not its abbreviation. The same appllies for pretty much any other medical term. Wretchskull (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per WP:NCA, Britannica uses the full term and I think the full term is used commonly enough to not use the acronym. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: In addition to the very good reasons per WP:MEDTITLE and general mos med, using an abbreviation is fine within an article, but I really disagree that that kind of reasoning should be used to change the name of an article. Mason (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. We moved "Coronavirus disease 2019" to COVID-19. I don't see how this case is any different from that. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rreagan007: COVID-19 is an official name, plus MEDRS sources also refer to it as such—that is what we base medical information on on wikipedia. ADHD is not the official name, it is an abbreviation of the official one: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and all MEDRS sources name it as such. Google Ngram doesn't mean anything here. Wretchskull (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. WP:MEDRS is only a guideline. WP:COMMONNAME still applies here. Wikipedia is a general-use encyclopedia, not a medical journal. The most common name that our readers will be familiar with is what should be used for the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCACRO ("Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject") and evidence supplied above, including the precedence of COVID-19. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a specialist medical publication, and we should use the term commonly used in general-purpose reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Common-to-the-general-public name or full medical name? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the sake of preventing repeated arguments. WP:MEDTITLE is guideline, WP:MEDRS is guideline. We can scream WP:COMMONNAME until the cows come home but let's think how many disorders are listed by their abbreviation on here? COVID-19 is a disease. – The Grid (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose WP:MEDTITLE is pretty clear here, there is already a redirect. If there is concern about the redirect we can just request it get page protection. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for all the previous reasons as to why this isnt a good idea, and every other disorder's article on wikipedia usses the full name, not the abreviation. Using abreviations for article titles is simply infromal in most cases, even when it is an official term. ¿V0id? {have a great day!} (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "ADHD""ADD", "ADHD", and "Hyperactive" all redirect to this page. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is the official name - it would be bizarre to me if Wikipedia was to start abbreviating all conditions ex. Borderline Personality Disorder becoming BPD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder becoming PTSD. It might be common in your circle to abbreviate these but it's not in all. Examples used in MOS:ACROTITLE explain this quite well, if Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder wasn't the well-known name of the condition and most people wouldn't be able to tell you what ADHD stands for when asked - maybe. However that's not really the case at all since both terms are used interchangeably - so there is not a clear benefit in changing it to an acronym. --Marleeashton (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not really understand why it is considered "bizarre" to use the most common name for an article. I strongly believe most people would not be able to tell you what ADHD stands for when asked – it might however be common "in your circle" to refrain from using the abbreviation. MOS:ACROTITLE explains it well: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". 12u (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comorbidities - Eating disorders - Treatments - "Health at every size"

Currently this article says, "Malnourishment can result in symptoms that look similar to those of ADHD, which has the potential to be misdiagnosed as "ADHD" without proper clinical assessment and screening for disordered eating and nutritional adequacy. Individuals with co-morbid ADHD and disordered eating should be referred to a Registered Dietitian who specializes in using a Health at Every Size and Intuitive Eating approach, combined with neurodivergent-affirming, eating-disorder-informed care, for proper treatment." This is the source link, a pay-to-view webinar: https://edrdpro.com/tag/adhd/

Health at every size/Intuitive eating are pretty controversial and it seems inappropriate for the article to recommend them as a treatment for eating disorders, or to recommend treatments for eating disorders at all, really, especially making it seem as if this is the medical consensus on the topic. 2001:9E8:238:2900:D1E0:1127:ADDC:86AD (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article shouldn't be recommending treatment. I've gone ahead and removed this section. Tacyarg (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&oldid=1119173212"