Using Brain-Based Cognitive Measures to Support Clinical Decisions in ADHD

Using Brain-Based Cognitive Measures to Support Clinical Decisions in ADHD To the Editor: </P>No single test or group of tests is diagnostic of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [1] . Williams et al. [2] introduced IntegNeuro, which they hoped would serve as a diagnostic test. IntegNeuro included 11 neuropsychologic tests; previous research has shown that single tests have adequate sensitivity but lack specificity. Williams et al. argued that including additional tests theoretically related to ADHD might enhance specificity.</P>Williams et al. showed that a combination of sustained attention, impulsivity, intrusions, inhibition, and response variability had adequate sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.91). However, sensitivity and specificity are based on prior knowledge of the presence or absence of the disorder. Clinicians are rarely asked to confirm existing diagnoses. Instead, clinicians are asked to describe children without diagnoses who have developmental problems. The statistics of most interest are therefore positive and negative predictive power.</P>The positive and negative predictive power of IntegNeuro were 0.96 and 0.88, respectively. These data show clinical promise for IntegNeuro and indicate that the test deserves further investigation. However, the data fall short of the claim of Williams et al., that the study “supports the utility of a standardized approach to computerized cognitive assessment of (ADHD), to aid in clinical decision making.”</P>The primary criticism of the study of Williams et al. is the use of healthy control subjects as comparisons. A patient’s presentation for assessment implies that developmental issues are present. Comparing ADHD to healthy control subjects therefore seems irrelevant. More relevant is whether IntegNeuro is able to discriminate between ADHD and other developmental disorders. Studies have shown that developmental disorders overlap at both the cognitive and genetic levels [3] . Children with dyslexia are impaired—in some cases even more so those with ADHD—on several of the measures that Williams et al. claim aid decision making in ADHD. Overlap between developmental disorders implies that IntegNeuro may not have such good specificity when children with ADHD are compared to children with other developmental disorders, such as dyslexia.</P>The search for endophenotypes in ADHD will continue, and assessing objective measures of ADHD is laudable. However, Williams et al. have not presented a test that will add much more to the current DSM-IV symptoms and rating scales—at least for now. The next step must be to test the predictive power of IntegNeuro in children with developmental disorders, not in healthy control subjects.</P> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Pediatric Neurology Elsevier

Using Brain-Based Cognitive Measures to Support Clinical Decisions in ADHD

Pediatric Neurology, Volume 44 (2) – Feb 1, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/using-brain-based-cognitive-measures-to-support-clinical-decisions-in-v73XGisLD3
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.
ISSN
0887-8994
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2010.10.010
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To the Editor: </P>No single test or group of tests is diagnostic of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [1] . Williams et al. [2] introduced IntegNeuro, which they hoped would serve as a diagnostic test. IntegNeuro included 11 neuropsychologic tests; previous research has shown that single tests have adequate sensitivity but lack specificity. Williams et al. argued that including additional tests theoretically related to ADHD might enhance specificity.</P>Williams et al. showed that a combination of sustained attention, impulsivity, intrusions, inhibition, and response variability had adequate sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.91). However, sensitivity and specificity are based on prior knowledge of the presence or absence of the disorder. Clinicians are rarely asked to confirm existing diagnoses. Instead, clinicians are asked to describe children without diagnoses who have developmental problems. The statistics of most interest are therefore positive and negative predictive power.</P>The positive and negative predictive power of IntegNeuro were 0.96 and 0.88, respectively. These data show clinical promise for IntegNeuro and indicate that the test deserves further investigation. However, the data fall short of the claim of Williams et al., that the study “supports the utility of a standardized approach to computerized cognitive assessment of (ADHD), to aid in clinical decision making.”</P>The primary criticism of the study of Williams et al. is the use of healthy control subjects as comparisons. A patient’s presentation for assessment implies that developmental issues are present. Comparing ADHD to healthy control subjects therefore seems irrelevant. More relevant is whether IntegNeuro is able to discriminate between ADHD and other developmental disorders. Studies have shown that developmental disorders overlap at both the cognitive and genetic levels [3] . Children with dyslexia are impaired—in some cases even more so those with ADHD—on several of the measures that Williams et al. claim aid decision making in ADHD. Overlap between developmental disorders implies that IntegNeuro may not have such good specificity when children with ADHD are compared to children with other developmental disorders, such as dyslexia.</P>The search for endophenotypes in ADHD will continue, and assessing objective measures of ADHD is laudable. However, Williams et al. have not presented a test that will add much more to the current DSM-IV symptoms and rating scales—at least for now. The next step must be to test the predictive power of IntegNeuro in children with developmental disorders, not in healthy control subjects.</P>

Journal

Pediatric NeurologyElsevier

Published: Feb 1, 2011

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off