ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Validation of a criterion-based screening and triage pathway for adult ADHD: a prospective observational study of safety and operational efficiency.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing demand for adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessments has required the development of efficient triage pathways. This study provides a formal assessment of a criterion-based screening model designed to prioritise patient safety and operational efficiency within a National Health Service (NHS) specialist secondary care setting. Methods: A prospective observational validation design was employed, involving 49 consecutive adults referred for ADHD assessment none of whom had a previous ADHD diagnosis. The Comprehensive ADHD Screening Questionnaire (CASQ), a clinician-administered instrument based on DSM-5 criteria, was utilised by four trained Physician Assistants. To ensure an assessment of triage safety, a universal assessment model was adopted: all participants received a blinded, gold-standard diagnostic assessment (NICE-compliant) regardless of the initial triage recommendation thereby eliminating verification bias. The primary outcome measure was the Number Needed to Harm (NNH), defined as the number of people screened before a single false-negative result occurs. Results: Of the 48 participants who completed the diagnostic process, six (12.5%) received an ADHD diagnosis. The triage pathway correctly identified all six cases, resulting in a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI: 61.0%-100.0%) and an infinite NNH. Specificity was 45.2% (95% CI: 31.2%-59.9%), with a positive predictive value of 20.7%. The pathway permitted 39.6% (n = 19) of referrals to be triaged to alternative pathways rather than full ADHD assessment, potentially saving significant specialist clinician time. Exploratory analyses indicated that score magnitude did not reliably distinguish between true and false positives within the group triaged as appropriate for further assessment. Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that criterion-based screening conducted by appropriately trained non-specialist clinicians can achieve high levels of safety whilst improving service efficiency. The findings support the feasibility of task-shifting models in adult ADHD services, provided that triage thresholds are calibrated to prioritise sensitivity. These results require replication in adequately powered multi-site studies before firm conclusions regarding pathway safety can be drawn. Further research is required to establish inter-rater reliability and cost-effectiveness across diverse clinical settings.
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.