5.2 2024 Elaine Schlosser Lewis Award for Research on Attention-Deficit Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Clinical Utility of Continuous Performance Tests for Identification of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
5.2 2024 Elaine Schlosser Lewis Award for Research on Attention-Deficit Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Clinical Utility of Continuous Performance Tests for Identification of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Objectives: we aimed to quantify the clinical utility of continuous performance tests (CPTs) for the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to a clinical diagnosis in children and adolescents.
Methods: four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and PubMed) were screened until January 2023. Risk of bias of included results was judged with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). We statistically pooled the area under the curve, the sensitivity, and the specificity of 3 commonly used CPTs subscales: omission/inattention, commission/impulsivity, and total number of errors/ADHD subscales (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020168091).
Results: a total of 19 studies using commercially available CPTs were identified. Results from up to 835 control individuals and 819 cases were combined in the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses (sensitivity and specificity pooling), and up to 996 cases and 1083 control individuals in the area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Clinical utility as measured by AUCs could be considered as barely acceptable (between 0.7 and 0.8) for the most part, with the best results for the total/ADHD score, followed by omissions/inattention, and poorest for commission/impulsivity scores. A similar pattern was found when pooling sensitivity and specificity: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.66-0.82) and 0.71 (0.62-0.78) for the total/ADHD score; 0.63 (0.49-0.75) and 0.74 (0.65-0.81) for omissions; and 0.59 (0.38-0.77) and 0.66 (CI = 0.50-0.78) for commissions.
Conclusions: at the clinical level, CPTs as a stand-alone tool have only a modest to moderate ability to differentiate ADHD from non-ADHD samples. Hence, they should be used only within a more comprehensive diagnostic process.
S139
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Cortese, Samuele
(2024)
5.2 2024 Elaine Schlosser Lewis Award for Research on Attention-Deficit Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Clinical Utility of Continuous Performance Tests for Identification of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 63 (10), .
(doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2024.08.017).
Record type:
Meeting abstract
Abstract
Objectives: we aimed to quantify the clinical utility of continuous performance tests (CPTs) for the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to a clinical diagnosis in children and adolescents.
Methods: four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and PubMed) were screened until January 2023. Risk of bias of included results was judged with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). We statistically pooled the area under the curve, the sensitivity, and the specificity of 3 commonly used CPTs subscales: omission/inattention, commission/impulsivity, and total number of errors/ADHD subscales (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020168091).
Results: a total of 19 studies using commercially available CPTs were identified. Results from up to 835 control individuals and 819 cases were combined in the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses (sensitivity and specificity pooling), and up to 996 cases and 1083 control individuals in the area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Clinical utility as measured by AUCs could be considered as barely acceptable (between 0.7 and 0.8) for the most part, with the best results for the total/ADHD score, followed by omissions/inattention, and poorest for commission/impulsivity scores. A similar pattern was found when pooling sensitivity and specificity: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.66-0.82) and 0.71 (0.62-0.78) for the total/ADHD score; 0.63 (0.49-0.75) and 0.74 (0.65-0.81) for omissions; and 0.59 (0.38-0.77) and 0.66 (CI = 0.50-0.78) for commissions.
Conclusions: at the clinical level, CPTs as a stand-alone tool have only a modest to moderate ability to differentiate ADHD from non-ADHD samples. Hence, they should be used only within a more comprehensive diagnostic process.
Text
1-s2.0-S0890856724013674-main
- Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 7 October 2024
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 498916
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/498916
ISSN: 1527-5418
PURE UUID: 47ca6c07-be83-4c6b-ac32-5d90b1ceb8dc
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 04 Mar 2025 18:08
Last modified: 05 Mar 2025 02:50
Export record
Altmetrics
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
