Talk:Attention deficit disorder/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Attention deficit disorder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Um this page has been vandelized (so has my spelling) -- Disbalan 09:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than have a whole other article, let's integrate info into Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. And anyway, "Inattentive ADD" is redundant. Officially, it's actually "ADHD Primarily Inattentive" -- Tim D 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sub type not represented in main article and a radically different sub type, not appropriate no put all this info. In main article. Other then being attention problems they have very little in common. -- Chris H

It is completely appropriate to put it in the main article, as it is not a distinct disorder in itself. The main article is lacking info on it, but the topic is best represented there than elsewhere -- Tim D 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty to move the article to ADHD predominantly inattentive, which is a more appropriate name. Inattentive ADD is close, but not quite there. -- Tim D 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The inattentive subtype is interesting because much less is known about this group then the other two types of ADHD. This is because most clinical studies have and still do focus on the "Combos" and hyperactive-impulsive subgroups. As researchers studied this group more closely they discovered a homogenous sub-sub group which has been called Sluggish Coginitive Tempo for lack of a better name. There is debate if SCT should be considered a different disorder.--Scuro 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edited one indcidence of "ADHD-PI" to read "ADHD-I"; whether this is the best abbreviation or not it is the one that was used throughout the rest of the paragraph.]

since when hasn't the term ADD been recognized anymore? so many ppl still commonly recognize the term ADD as a legit term, and so did i until i read the article.75.45.184.124 (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not like it's set in stone, I read on the draft DSM-5 that one of the options for consideration was having a separate ADD classification. cyclosarin (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You listed one of the symptoms children who have ADHD are likely to exhibit was trouble with household tasks such cleaning or paying bills.

I don't know too many children who pay bills. I think most children would have trouble with that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.145.169.201 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I don't know how that snuck in there. All that stuff needs some cleaning up, actually. There's too much redundancy. -- Tim D 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing missing in the article is that ADHD PI can have impulsive and hyperactive symptoms. That is in the DSMIV

--scuro 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Adults can have ADD. Please research before deletions occur. http://www.chadd.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Especially_For_Adults

~ MenomaMinx

This page contains out of date information. Please update with DSM-IV-TR.75.73.45.161 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a head injury sufferer. I have recovered a great deal and understand many differences between myself before the injury and now. ADHD without the "H" describes so precisely the symptoms that I and many others I know from support groups suffer. I haven't the brainpower or credientials to really add to this article, and So i simply ask the question where I hope others with credentials and resources are able to pick up the ball. H Myers. 97.103.158.214 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many conditions with symptoms similar to ADHD-I, for example, Hypothyroidism. According to the DSM, a diagnosis of ADHD-I should only be made when, among other things, the symptoms have been present since age 7 or before, and that the symptoms are not better explained by other conditions. Ofus (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to flag this in another manner, but the citation for Dr. Russell Barkley's work redirects in a suspicious manner. It leads to some sort of learning disability resource page, but definitely not the article suggested. Can that be fixed, or the paragraph confidently deleted? 75.229.73.56 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never edited a wikipedia page and don't feel I have the expertise to do so, really, but one aspect of this article seemed really odd to me.

I get that the symptoms of ADHD-PI can mimic thyroid conditions; the symptoms can mimic a lot of other conditions in the symptoms' more extreme forms (early onset alzheimer's, stroke, CNS tumors in just the wrong spot, etc.). However, the the link included on the page to the Wikipedia article on Wilson's Syndrome is a total red herring. The Wilson's Syndrome article is not closely related enough to warrant inclusion in the ADHD article. If need be, a list of common differential diagnoses might be helpful, and in that section a link to a more scientifically sound article on hypothyroidism in general could be included. Perhaps anything that falls under endocrine pseudoscience (as mentioned on the Wilson's Syndrome Wiki article) might best be left off this page? Otherwise, based on the description that Wilson's Syndrome can present with up to 80 symptoms, you'd have to link to it from most of the medical articles on Wikipedia!

Also, I was kind of surprised by how little neuroscience this is on this page. Neurotransmitter involvement, neuroanatomy (associated cortical regions or tracts, etc.) might add some value to the discussion of ADHD-IS vs. ADHD-HS. Especially given that a difference in response to neurotransmitter-modifying drugs is made within the article. I lack the expertise to sufficiently discuss this in detail for the article, so if someone else does, that might be of value to the page.

Finally, I can't believe this article is only given a mid-level importance rating in the wikimedicine project. ADHD in general is all over the popular media, and ADHD-PI is especially of interest in the controversy over current perception of over-diagnosis of ADHD in our culture, since it is still frequently missed by those who tend to refer children or adolescents for testing. Rightly or not, wikipedia is one of the first places patients (or their parents) turn for information about new diagnoses. ADHD may not have the mortality of diabetes or coronary artery disease, but this page still discusses something that frequently comes up in patient care.

Thanks for considering these suggestions!

Voraciouslearner (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel confident to SO FIX IT, but I am a bit concerned about the style of parts of this article. As I understand it, we don't tell people what to do- but some of the article is written that way. "You should" instead of "parents should", etc. Also, isn't "Kids" a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia, we are talking children, not baby goats.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed this mess Many people report excellent results using medical cannabis for treating ADHD and some research supports this treatment. ^[1][2]

The sources are anecdotal and unreliable. I quick google and pubmed search reveals neither of the cited physicians has ever performed any sort of formal scientific study or research in this area, or if they have, it has never been published in a scientific journal that I can find.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=1664 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=594

67.11.63.68 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC) tilde

The section titled "How common is ADHD" seems more appropriate in the main ADHD article; as I understand it the section is not at all addressing the more specific "predominately inattentive" portion of ADHD population.

Ard 134.29.149.254 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference leads to the home page for a large website without any search ability. I erased the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.248.176 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum, nor a place to imply "opinion", however, it seems very common among myself and fellow ADHD (and ADHD-PI which is what I am) people that they are capable of advanced and highly skilled tasks such as computer programming and other technical trades. I've also seen a lot of references on the web as well as TV documentaries and books that there are many successful and highly intelligent people with ADHD. I know that doesn't prove a direct connection with ADHD but if you have ADHD-PI like myself, you might recognize these commonalities.

This still seems to be an understudied and misunderstood problem. It would make me extraordinarily happy if someone could point out or acknowledge these points in Wikipedia.

One thing that bothers be about the current Wikipedia articles on ADHD or ADHD-PI is the frequent mention of children. I was ADD when I was a child, and I can tell you from first hand experience that many of my friends who are not ADD were taking ADD medicine while I was not. As a 32 year adult I have come to understand it much better. There is definitely an issue with misdiagnosis in children.

SO... I think there should be some mentions about: - Misdiagnoses in children - Higher intelligence (with perhaps less common sense and lack of pubic understanding.. which in turn makes it not necessarily a good thing), but still tends to be a mechanical process brain. - How exercise and diet are proving to be a successful form of self treatment.

If someone would like to deliberate or talk about this, please feel free to email me at stan@vailaz.com. Thanks, ~S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.131.21 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If this article is about a children's condition only then it's not clearly stated.

The adulthood aspect either deserves its own page or the distinction (if any) between childhood and adulthood ADHD-PI should be clarified in the structure of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.201.33 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty confused by the first paragraph of this section. It goes to some length to define first and second-line treatment, which is unnecessary (I suggest a rewrite with bluelink to therapy or first-line treatment) and ultimately confusing, because references 15 and 16 do not describe the treatment hierarchy in the same manner. I suggest removing reference 15.

Now that I've 'nitpicked', I realize I should ask a more general question--does pharm. treatment of ADHD-PI differ from treatment for other ADHDs? Perhaps this section should just have a pointer to a 'main article ADHD', or 'see also..' and a sentence or two describing differences in treatment , if they exist.

Anyway, I will wait a few days to collect feedback.

Afragola (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(added the word references to clarify my comment)

Afragola (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Medications used in treatment are the same, but mean response to treatment is significantly different between non-hyperactive and hyperactive subgroups. Possible sources:

• Attention Deficit Disorder With and Without Hyperactivity: Clinical Response to Three Dose Levels of Methylphenidate
• Attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (without hyperactivity): A neurobiologically and behaviorally distinct disorder from attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (with hyperactivity)

Knneth (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If by that you mean that it's not caused by a virus or bacteria, you're correct. But it's still a disease, because those causes are not necessary for a disease. htom (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there is still a debate about whether or not it's even a real thing should be added to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

People refuse to believe in what they can't see. We could add such information to every medical condition that is not instantly obvious. Lots of people don't believe in color blindness and claim sufferers should "look harder and see the differences". ADHD was first described by a modern medical doctor in 1798; the name has changed over the years, but the condition is there. (It was describe by both Greeks and Romans as a matter of temperament.) Identical twin raised apart studies show it's almost as inheritable as height, the most inherited characteristic. It's probably true that many who are being "diagnosed" and "treated" for it these days do not have it. That doesn't mean that the others don't, or that it doesn't exist at all. There are those that have it that don't believe in it, either. That doesn't help their children or grandchildren learn to live with it, and that is what you have to do if you have it. htom (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to at least add that there is skepticism, because it definitely is there. Many doctors admit that they do not believe that it is a condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)