ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Does the format of the adult ADHD self-report scale influence screen-positive rates? A randomized controlled trial in primary care.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06530758 (Does the Format of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Impact the Results), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Does the Format of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Impact the Results: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Adult Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD) Self-Report Scale (ASRS) is widely used for ADHD screening in primary care clinics worldwide. While it offers a quick and efficient method to screen for ADHD, it also has a high false positive rate. The standard ASRS format-shaded responses for screen-positive items and grouping the key questions in Part A-may contribute to this issue. The objective of this study is to examine whether these design features impact the screen positive rate. Methods: This is a 2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial that ran from July to October 2024. Individuals 19 to 65 years old attending a family medicine clinic received at random one of four ASRS forms on registration (standard, grouping only, shading only, and no shading and no grouping). Logistic regression was used to analyze the results. Results: A total of 595 participants completed the study: mean age 39 (standard deviation 12), 79% women, 85% with at least some post-secondary education, 54% White, 33% Asian, 13% other ethnicities. Additionally, 14% had a prior ADHD diagnosis, and 23% suspected they had undiagnosed ADHD. Overall, 32% of participants screened positive for ADHD, and grouping and shading were not statistically significant predictors of a positive ADHD screen (Odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% CI 0.98-1.58 and OR 0.88 95% CI 0.69-1.12 respectively). In contrast, prior ADHD diagnosis and suspected undiagnosed ADHD were statistically significant predictors (OR 47.4, 95% CI 23,1-97.0 and OR 16.2, 95% CI 9.7-27.2, respectively). Conclusion: The standard ASRS does not appear to increase the screen positive rate. Nevertheless, the high positive screening rate highlights the need for more effective ADHD screening tools in primary care. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT06530758.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.