Canadian Guidelines for the Evidence-Based Treatment of Tic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian treatment guidelines regarding the management of tic disorders, including Tourette syndrome (TS), have have been long overdue. Ever since the syndrome was first described by Georges Gilles de la Tourette in 1885,' TS was considered to be a rare but fascinating disorder. There are now considerable data that document the prevalence of TS to be around 1% of the general population.2 This means that the average general practitioner with a caseload of 3000 patients will care for about 30 patients with this condition. The many different agents that have been in use reflects that no ideal treatment has emerged, to date. Moreover, there has been no clear consensus in Canada about the sequence in which the available treatments should be employed. Treatment becomes more complex yet when one considers that more than one-half of patients with TS present with concurrent disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and (or) obsessive-compulsive disorder.3 Therefore, it is important to provide an up-to-date overview of the evidence regarding treatments currently in use, as well as guidelines based on the best available evidence. Although clinical guidelines for the treatment of TS have been recently published in other jurisdictions,46 there are variations in the availability of interventions and in clinical practices to justify the need for clinical guidelines that reflect the Canadian context. TS begins in childhood and can have a negative effect on the child's functioning as well as psychological wellbeing.7·8 Without timely intervention, this can often lead to detrimental long-term effects on social adaptation, academic success, self-image, and self-esteem. These risks are particularly important for children who have not only TS but also one or more comorbid conditions. In general, one can intervene at 3 levels: educational, psychotherapeutic, and pharmacological. It is important to emphasize that a person and their family can benefit from receiving the diagnosis and learning about the nature of the condition, including its natural course and prognosis. In most mild cases, that is sufficient to allow them to cope with the symptoms successfully. However, the clinician must be sensitive to the great variability in the tolerance of tics among affected people and families. Consequently, the decision of whether and when to move on to more active interventions, such as behavioural treatment or pharmacotherapy, depends, to a considerable extent, on the attitude and needs of patients and their families, which have to be evaluated patient by patient. It is for that reason that one cannot specify a particular frequency or severity of tics as a threshold beyond which treatment is always necessary. Instead, the treatment should be offered when the symptoms interfere with academic, vocational, or social functioning, or cause physical pain or psychological distress. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind, and to educate patients, that for most people with TS, the tics subside on their own by the end of adolescence.' Awareness of this typical natural course of tics often leads to a more conservative approach to treatment, especially when considering medications that are associated with significant adverse effects. Further, highly invasive experimental treatments, such as psychosurgery, should be avoided in patients aged 20 years and younger. Frequently, tics are less pronounced at school than at home because of the tendency to inhibit them in public, albeit at the cost of reduced attention and increased irritability. Nevertheless, tics are often experienced as disruptive and embarrassing in the school setting. There is room here for professional intervention in terms of recommending practical strategies, which often include informing teachers and classmates about the nature of tics to avoid unwarranted reprimands and teasing. Advising patients on how to handle questions about their tics is also useful and important. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".