Canadian Guidelines on Pharmacotherapy for Disruptive and Aggressive Behaviour in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or Conduct Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based guidelines on pharmacotherapy for severe disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), or conduct disorder (CD). The guidelines assume that psychosocial interventions have been pursued but did not achieve sufficient improvement. METHOD: A multidisciplinary consensus group used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for rating evidence quality and for grading recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of medications studied in placebo-controlled trials for treating disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD, ODD, or CD. We followed consensus procedures to make 1 of 4 recommendations for each medication: strong, in favour (↑↑); conditional, in favour (↑?); conditional, against (↓?); and strong, against (↓↓). RESULTS: For children and adolescents with disruptive or aggressive behaviour associated with ADHD, psychostimulants received a strong recommendation in favour of use, while atomoxetine and alpha-2 agonists received a conditional recommendation in favour of use. If these patients do poorly with ADHD medications, the medication with the most evidence is risperidone. Risperidone also has the most evidence for treating disruptive or aggressive behaviour in the absence of ADHD. However, given risperidone's major adverse effects, it received only a conditional recommendation in favour of use. We recommended against using quetiapine, haloperidol, lithium, or carbamazepine because of the poor quality of evidence and their major adverse effects. CONCLUSION: When severe disruptive or aggressive behaviour occurs with ADHD, medications for ADHD should be used first. Other medications have major adverse effects and, with the exception of risperidone, very limited evidence to support their use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".