Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a comprehensive review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the evaluation and/or diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. A systematic review was undertaken to summarise the recommendations reported in CPGs. MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature® (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA) and other databases were searched to retrieve CPGs. A total of five guidelines were included for analysis. The selected CPGs were appraised independently by five reviewers using the AGREE II instrument. The highest total score was achieved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (91.4%) followed by the CPGs from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Canadian Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Resource Alliance, British Association of Psychopharmacology and the American Academy of Paediatrics. By appraising current ADHD guidelines, clinicians cannot only identify CPGs related to ADHD but can also determine which guidelines should be considered of high quality and trustworthy to follow during clinical practice. The researchers recommend using the AGREE II instrument for CPG appraisal in healthcare professional education and training. Improvements in the applicability of guidelines are warranted in the future to enhance its clinical use and relevance. KEYWORDS Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Practice Guidelines; Adolescents; Children; Diagnosis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".