Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29776429›Full record

ArticleBehavioral and brain functions : BBF2018

Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures.

Theresa S Emser, Blair A Johnston, J Douglas Steele, Sandra Kooij, Lisa Thorell, Hanna Christiansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral and brain functions : BBF, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The SASOP/PsychMg child and adolescent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder guidelines.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Theresa S EmserClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Department of Psychology, Philipps University Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35037, Marburg, Germany. Emser_T@ukw.de.
Blair A JohnstonDivision of Neuroscience, Medical Research Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
J Douglas SteeleSchool of Medicine (Neuroscience), University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Sandra KooijPsyQ, Psycho-medical Programs, Expertise Center Adult ADHD, Jan van Nassaustraat 125, 2596 BS, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Lisa ThorellDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 5th floor, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hanna ChristiansenClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Department of Psychology, Philipps University Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35037, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic guidelines recommend using a variety of methods to assess and diagnose ADHD. Applying subjective measures always incorporates risks such as informant biases or large differences between ratings obtained from diverse sources. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that ratings and tests seem to assess somewhat different constructs. The use of objective measures might thus yield valuable information for diagnosing ADHD. This study aims at evaluating the role of objective measures when trying to distinguish between individuals with ADHD and controls. Our sample consisted of children (n = 60) and adults (n = 76) diagnosed with ADHD and matched controls who completed self- and observer ratings as well as objective tasks. Diagnosis was primarily based on clinical interviews. A popular pattern recognition approach, support vector machines, was used to predict the diagnosis.

resultsWe observed relatively high accuracy of 79% (adults) and 78% (children) applying solely objective measures. Predicting an ADHD diagnosis using both subjective and objective measures exceeded the accuracy of objective measures for both adults (89.5%) and children (86.7%), with the subjective variables proving to be the most relevant.

conclusionsWe argue that objective measures are more robust against rater bias and errors inherent in subjective measures and may be more replicable. Considering the high accuracy of objective measures only, we found in our study, we think that they should be incorporated in diagnostic procedures for assessing ADHD.

Indexed as

AdultAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityChildHumansMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsSupport Vector MachineSymptom AssessmentADHDChildren/adultsClassificationObjective assessmentSupport vector machines

Identifiers

PMID29776429
PMCPMC5960089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.