Diagnosing ADHD in adults in randomized controlled studies: a scoping review.

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Igor Studart, Mads Gram Henriksen, Julie Nordgaard
{"title":"Diagnosing ADHD in adults in randomized controlled studies: a scoping review.","authors":"Igor Studart, Mads Gram Henriksen, Julie Nordgaard","doi":"10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.2447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of ADHD in adults is on the rise. Applying the ADHD diagnosis, which originally was described in children, to adults has involved a \"subjectivization\" of some of the diagnostic criteria, i.e., some behavioral features (signs) in children have become experiences (symptoms) in adults. These issues raise the question of how ADHD is best diagnosed in adults? Thus, we examined how ADHD is diagnosed in adults in research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review of how ADHD is diagnosed in adults in randomized controlled studies (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We include 292 RCTs. We found substantial variation and no consensus about the diagnostic method. More than half of the studies did not seem to include an assessment of general psychopathology, and only in 35% of studies was the ADHD diagnosis allocated by psychiatrists or psychologist. More than half of the studies included patients with psychiatric comorbidity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings raise concerns about the validity of the ADHD diagnosis in many of the included RCTs. It is worrying that securing a reasonably accurate diagnosis is not prioritized in more than half of the studies. If neither clinicians nor researchers can rely on the basic fact the patients in scientific studies diagnostically resemble the patients they are facing, scientific studies risk losing their clinical relevance. Since RCTs can lead to changes in clinical practice, they must be conducted carefully. To advance research on adult ADHD, the quality of the diagnostic assessment must be prioritized, requiring comprehensive differential diagnosis by a skilled psychiatrist or psychologist.</p>","PeriodicalId":12155,"journal":{"name":"European Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"e64"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12188335/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.2447","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of ADHD in adults is on the rise. Applying the ADHD diagnosis, which originally was described in children, to adults has involved a "subjectivization" of some of the diagnostic criteria, i.e., some behavioral features (signs) in children have become experiences (symptoms) in adults. These issues raise the question of how ADHD is best diagnosed in adults? Thus, we examined how ADHD is diagnosed in adults in research.

Methods: A review of how ADHD is diagnosed in adults in randomized controlled studies (RCTs).

Results: We include 292 RCTs. We found substantial variation and no consensus about the diagnostic method. More than half of the studies did not seem to include an assessment of general psychopathology, and only in 35% of studies was the ADHD diagnosis allocated by psychiatrists or psychologist. More than half of the studies included patients with psychiatric comorbidity.

Conclusion: These findings raise concerns about the validity of the ADHD diagnosis in many of the included RCTs. It is worrying that securing a reasonably accurate diagnosis is not prioritized in more than half of the studies. If neither clinicians nor researchers can rely on the basic fact the patients in scientific studies diagnostically resemble the patients they are facing, scientific studies risk losing their clinical relevance. Since RCTs can lead to changes in clinical practice, they must be conducted carefully. To advance research on adult ADHD, the quality of the diagnostic assessment must be prioritized, requiring comprehensive differential diagnosis by a skilled psychiatrist or psychologist.

在随机对照研究中诊断成人ADHD:一项范围综述。
背景:成人ADHD的诊断呈上升趋势。将ADHD的诊断应用于成人,原本是在儿童身上描述的,已经涉及到一些诊断标准的“主体化”,也就是说,儿童的一些行为特征(体征)已经成为成人的经历(症状)。这些问题提出了一个问题:如何才能最好地诊断成人多动症?因此,我们在研究中检查了成人ADHD的诊断。方法:回顾在随机对照研究(RCTs)中如何诊断成人ADHD。结果:我们纳入了292项rct。我们发现诊断方法有很大的差异,没有共识。超过一半的研究似乎没有包括一般精神病理学的评估,只有35%的研究是由精神病学家或心理学家分配的ADHD诊断。超过一半的研究包括患有精神疾病的患者。结论:这些发现引起了对许多纳入的随机对照试验中ADHD诊断有效性的关注。令人担忧的是,在超过一半的研究中,获得合理准确的诊断并没有得到优先考虑。如果临床医生和研究人员都不能依靠科学研究中的患者在诊断上与他们所面对的患者相似这一基本事实,那么科学研究就有可能失去其临床相关性。由于随机对照试验可能导致临床实践的变化,因此必须谨慎进行。为了推进成人ADHD的研究,诊断评估的质量必须优先考虑,需要熟练的精神科医生或心理学家进行全面的鉴别诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Psychiatry
European Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
2338
审稿时长
4.5 weeks
期刊介绍: European Psychiatry, the official journal of the European Psychiatric Association, is dedicated to sharing cutting-edge research, policy updates, and fostering dialogue among clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates in the fields of psychiatry, mental health, behavioral science, and neuroscience. This peer-reviewed, Open Access journal strives to publish the latest advancements across various mental health issues, including diagnostic and treatment breakthroughs, as well as advancements in understanding the biological foundations of mental, behavioral, and cognitive functions in both clinical and general population studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信