ArticleGeneral psychiatry2026
Establishing clinically important differences in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Article in General psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
Background: The adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Self-Report Scale (ASRS) is one of the most widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for evaluating ADHD symptom severity and treatment-related changes in clinical trials of adults with ADHD; however, clinically important differences (CIDs) for the ASRS remain poorly defined. Aims: This study aimed to review how CIDs for the ASRS have been reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ADHD and to establish ASRS-specific CID values for this population. Methods: We first conducted a cross-sectional literature search to examine the reporting of CID values in RCTs of adult ADHD interventions. We then conducted a secondary analysis of an RCT involving 56 adults with ADHD who received either active or sham transcranial alternating current stimulation. The ASRS total score served as the PROM. An anchor-based approach using the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale was applied. General linear mixed-effects modelling estimated mean differences across patient-defined improvement levels to identify categorical CID thresholds. Results: None of the 11 identified studies reported CID values for the ASRS as a PROM in adults with ADHD. The mixed-effects model indicated that a reduction of approximately 13.39 points in ASRS total score represents a clinically meaningful improvement (CID Conclusions: This study provides adult-ADHD-specific CID estimates that offer practical benchmarks for interpreting treatment response and informing power calculations in future clinical trials.
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.