Practitioner review: clinical utility of the QbTest for the assessment and diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder - a systematic review and meta-analysis
Practitioner review: clinical utility of the QbTest for the assessment and diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder - a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: several computerised cognitive tests (e.g. continuous performance test) have been developed to support the clinical assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Here, we appraised the evidence-base underpinning the use of one of these tests - the QbTest - in clinical practice, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating its accuracy and clinical utility.
Methods: based on a preregistered protocol (CRD42022377671), we searched PubMed, Medline, Ovid Embase, APA PsycINFO and Web of Science on 15th August 2022, with no language/type of document restrictions. We included studies reporting accuracy measures (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, or Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve, AUC) for QbTest in discriminating between people with and without DSM/ICD ADHD diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). A generic inverse variance meta-analysis was conducted on AUC scores. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a random-effects bivariate model in R.
Results: we included 15 studies (2,058 participants; 48.6% with ADHD). QbTest Total scores showed acceptable, rather than good, sensitivity (0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.69; 0.85]) and specificity (0.70 [0.57; 0.81]), while subscales showed low-to-moderate sensitivity (ranging from 0.48 [0.35; 0.61] to 0.65 [0.52; 0.75]) and moderate-to-good specificity (from 0.65 [0.48; 0.78] to 0.83 [0.60; 0.94]). Pooled AUC scores suggested moderate-to-acceptable discriminative ability (Q-Total: 0.72 [0.57; 0.87]; Q-Activity: 0.67 [0.58; 0.77); Q-Inattention: 0.66 [0.59; 0.72]; Q-Impulsivity: 0.59 [0.53; 0.64]).
Conclusions: when used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis.
ADHD, AUC, QbTest, sensitivity, specificity, validity
Bellato, Alessio
0ee4c34f-3850-4883-8b82-5717b74990f7
Hall, Charlotte L.
e4bcf579-5e93-4842-a7ff-8e7cfa055436
Groom, Madeleine J.
0950cda7-451f-40c3-a4e2-e6df8629de55
Simonoff, Emily
f47d91a8-3d57-4183-bf24-80352c55eedc
Thapar, Anita
224b4dc1-a6ee-455a-95f9-b9a716606aa6
Hollis, Chris
467c11b0-1ef5-4456-8101-cdc7e451fa33
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
6 October 2023
Bellato, Alessio
0ee4c34f-3850-4883-8b82-5717b74990f7
Hall, Charlotte L.
e4bcf579-5e93-4842-a7ff-8e7cfa055436
Groom, Madeleine J.
0950cda7-451f-40c3-a4e2-e6df8629de55
Simonoff, Emily
f47d91a8-3d57-4183-bf24-80352c55eedc
Thapar, Anita
224b4dc1-a6ee-455a-95f9-b9a716606aa6
Hollis, Chris
467c11b0-1ef5-4456-8101-cdc7e451fa33
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Bellato, Alessio, Hall, Charlotte L., Groom, Madeleine J., Simonoff, Emily, Thapar, Anita, Hollis, Chris and Cortese, Samuele
(2023)
Practitioner review: clinical utility of the QbTest for the assessment and diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry.
(doi:10.1111/jcpp.13901).
Abstract
Background: several computerised cognitive tests (e.g. continuous performance test) have been developed to support the clinical assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Here, we appraised the evidence-base underpinning the use of one of these tests - the QbTest - in clinical practice, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating its accuracy and clinical utility.
Methods: based on a preregistered protocol (CRD42022377671), we searched PubMed, Medline, Ovid Embase, APA PsycINFO and Web of Science on 15th August 2022, with no language/type of document restrictions. We included studies reporting accuracy measures (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, or Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve, AUC) for QbTest in discriminating between people with and without DSM/ICD ADHD diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). A generic inverse variance meta-analysis was conducted on AUC scores. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a random-effects bivariate model in R.
Results: we included 15 studies (2,058 participants; 48.6% with ADHD). QbTest Total scores showed acceptable, rather than good, sensitivity (0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.69; 0.85]) and specificity (0.70 [0.57; 0.81]), while subscales showed low-to-moderate sensitivity (ranging from 0.48 [0.35; 0.61] to 0.65 [0.52; 0.75]) and moderate-to-good specificity (from 0.65 [0.48; 0.78] to 0.83 [0.60; 0.94]). Pooled AUC scores suggested moderate-to-acceptable discriminative ability (Q-Total: 0.72 [0.57; 0.87]; Q-Activity: 0.67 [0.58; 0.77); Q-Inattention: 0.66 [0.59; 0.72]; Q-Impulsivity: 0.59 [0.53; 0.64]).
Conclusions: when used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis.
Text
Child Psychology Psychiatry - 2023 - Bellato - Practitioner Review Clinical utility of the QbTest for the assessment and
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 4 August 2023
e-pub ahead of print date: 6 October 2023
Published date: 6 October 2023
Additional Information:
Funding Information: the authors would like to thank Pia Tallberg for providing additional information about their publication and data for the meta‐analysis. A.B. does not have any interests to declare. C.L.H. was a research fellow and trial manager for the NIHR funded AQUA trial of QbTest; and she supported the East Midlands Academic Health Sciences Centre's Focus ADHD programme involving QbTest. M.J.G. received travel expenses from QbTech in 2013–2016. E.S. was Senior Clinical Advisor to the NICE ADHD guideline [NG87]. A.T.'s research is funded by the Wolfson Foundation and Wellcome Trust; she is a trustee (unpaid) of the UK Charity ADHD Foundation. C.H. was a member of the NICE guideline committee for ADHD [NG87], Expert Advisor to the NICE Medtech innovation briefing [MIB318] for QbTest, and chief investigator for the NIHR funded AQUA trial of QbTest. S.C. declares honoraria and reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses for lectures from the following nonprofit associations: the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (ACAMH), the Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance (CADDRA), the British Association for Pharmacology (BAP); and from Healthcare Convention for educational activity on ADHD. S.C. is currently supported by funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR (grants NIHR203684, NIHR203035, NIHR130077, NIHR128472, RP‐PG‐0618‐20003), Solent NHS Trust (Research Capability Funding, 2022), University of Southampton (Knowledge and Exchange Enterprise Fund 2023, Enterprise Development Fund 2022) and European Research Agency (Horizon: Project 101095568).
Keywords:
ADHD, AUC, QbTest, sensitivity, specificity, validity
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 483129
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/483129
ISSN: 1469-7610
PURE UUID: a9004c19-9579-46d9-b147-6ac612f945d2
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 25 Oct 2023 16:33
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:16
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Alessio Bellato
Author:
Charlotte L. Hall
Author:
Madeleine J. Groom
Author:
Emily Simonoff
Author:
Anita Thapar
Author:
Chris Hollis
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics