Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Critical Appraisal of Extended Treatment Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We undertook a systematic review of the literature on the long-term treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We used systematic strategies to identify randomized treatment studies in which treatment was administered for 12 weeks or more. We included 14 studies involving 1379 subjects. Because of the limited number of high-quality studies and the heterogeneity of outcome measures, we did not perform meta-analysis. We rated 5 studies as adequate for methodological quality. Five studies followed children for more than 26 weeks. Pharmacologic interventions were studied more frequently than non-pharmacologic ones. Six studies permitted evaluation of the effects of combined drug and behavioural intervention. Twenty-five different outcomes were measured using 26 different tests. Stimulant medication appears to reduce ADHD (7 studies), dysfunctional social behaviour (6 studies), and internalizing symptoms (2 studies). Available studies provide little evidence for improved academic performance with stimulants (3 studies). Medications other than stimulants have not been studied extensively (3 studies). Only 1 study showed that combination therapy adds to the effects of medication. Rigorous treatment research among representative samples of ADHD individuals is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".