Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults:Evaluating the role of objective measures

Background: Diagnostic guidelines recommend using a variety of methods to assess and diagnose ADHD. Applying subjective measures always incorporates risks such as informant biases or large differences between ratings obtained from diverse sources. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that ratings and tests seem to assess somewhat different constructs. The use of objective measures might thus yield valuable information for diagnosing ADHD. This study aims at evaluating the role of objective measures when trying to distinguish between individuals with ADHD and controls. Our sample consisted of children (n = 60) and adults (n = 76) diagnosed with ADHD and matched controls who completed self- and observer ratings as well as objective tasks. Diagnosis was primarily based on clinical interviews. A popular pattern recognition approach, support vector machines, was used to predict the diagnosis. Results: We observed relatively high accuracy of 79% (adults) and 78% (children) applying solely objective measures. Predicting an ADHD diagnosis using both subjective and objective measures exceeded the accuracy of objective measures for both adults (89.5%) and children (86.7%), with the subjective variables proving to be the most relevant. Conclusions: We argue that objective measures are more robust against rater bias and errors inherent in subjective measures and may be more replicable. Considering the high accuracy of objective measures only, we found in our study, we think that they should be incorporated in diagnostic procedures for assessing ADHD

Mental practice-based rehabilitation training to improve arm function and daily activity performance in stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over 50% of patients with upper limb paresis resulting from stroke face long-term impaired arm function and ensuing disability in daily life. Unfortunately, the number of effective treatments aimed at improving arm function due to stroke is still low. This study aims to evaluate a new therapy for improving arm function in sub-acute stroke patients based on mental practice theories and functional task-oriented training, and to study the predictors for a positive treatment result. It is hypothesized that a six-week, mental practice-based training program (additional to regular therapy) targeting the specific upper extremity skills important to the individual patient will significantly improve both arm function and daily activity performance, as well as being cost effective.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>One hundred and sixty sub-acute stroke patients with upper limb paresis (MRC grade 1–3) will participate in a single-blinded, multi-centre RCT. The experimental group will undertake a six-week, individually tailored therapy regime focused on improving arm function using mental practice. The control group will perform bimanual upper extremity exercises in addition to regular therapy. Total contact time and training intensity will be similar for both groups. Measurements will be taken at therapy onset, after its cessation and during the follow-up period (after 6 and 12 months). Primary outcome measures will assess upper extremity functioning on the ICF level of daily life activity (Wolf Motor Function Test, Frenchay Arm Test, accelerometry), while secondary outcome measures cover the ICF impairment level (Brunnstrom-Fu-Meyer test). Level of societal participation (IPA) and quality of life (EuroQol; SS-Qol) will also be tested. Costs will be based on a cost questionnaire, and statistical analyses on MAN(C)OVA and GEE (generalized estimated equations).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of this mental practice-based rehabilitation training, as well as the cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials [ISRCTN33487341)</p

Combined analgesics in (headache) pain therapy: shotgun approach or precise multi-target therapeutics?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain in general and headache in particular are characterized by a change in activity in brain areas involved in pain processing. The therapeutic challenge is to identify drugs with molecular targets that restore the healthy state, resulting in meaningful pain relief or even freedom from pain. Different aspects of pain perception, i.e. sensory and affective components, also explain why there is not just one single target structure for therapeutic approaches to pain. A network of brain areas ("pain matrix") are involved in pain perception and pain control. This diversification of the pain system explains why a wide range of molecularly different substances can be used in the treatment of different pain states and why in recent years more and more studies have described a superior efficacy of a precise multi-target combination therapy compared to therapy with monotherapeutics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this article, we discuss the available literature on the effects of several fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of headaches and discuss the evidence in support of the role of combination therapy in the pharmacotherapy of pain, particularly of headaches. The scientific rationale behind multi-target combinations is the therapeutic benefit that could not be achieved by the individual constituents and that the single substances of the combinations act together additively or even multiplicatively and cooperate to achieve a completeness of the desired therapeutic effect.</p> <p>As an example the fixesd-dose combination of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), paracetamol (acetaminophen) and caffeine is reviewed in detail. The major advantage of using such a fixed combination is that the active ingredients act on different but distinct molecular targets and thus are able to act on more signalling cascades involved in pain than most single analgesics without adding more side effects to the therapy.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Multitarget therapeutics like combined analgesics broaden the array of therapeutic options, enable the completeness of the therapeutic effect, and allow doctors (and, in self-medication with OTC medications, the patients themselves) to customize treatment to the patient's specific needs. There is substantial clinical evidence that such a multi-component therapy is more effective than mono-component therapies.</p

Mirror therapy: A potential intervention for pain management.

The consequences of chronic pain and associated disabilities to the patient and to the health care system are well known. Medication is often the first treatment of choice for chronic pain, although side effects and high costs restrict long-term use. Inexpensive, safe and easy to self-administer non-pharmacological therapies, such as mirror therapy, are recommended as adjuncts to pain treatment. The purpose of this review is to describe the principles of use of mirror therapy so it can be incorporated into a health care delivery. The physiological rationale of mirror therapy for the management of pain and the evidence of clinical efficacy based on recent systematic reviews are also discussed. Mirror therapy, whereby a mirror is placed in a position so that the patient can view a reflection of a body part, has been used to treat phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathy and low back pain. Research evidence suggests that a course of treatment (four weeks) of mirror therapy may reduce chronic pain. Contraindications and side effects are few. The mechanism of action of mirror therapy remains uncertain, with reintegration of motor and sensory systems, restored body image and control over fear-avoidance likely to influence outcome. The evidence for clinical efficacy of mirror therapy is encouraging, but not yet definitive. Nevertheless, mirror therapy is inexpensive, safe and easy for the patient to self-administer

Identifying an indoor air exposure limit for formaldehyde considering both irritation and cancer hazards

Formaldehyde is a well-studied chemical and effects from inhalation exposures have been extensively characterized in numerous controlled studies with human volunteers, including asthmatics and other sensitive individuals, which provide a rich database on exposure concentrations that can reliably produce the symptoms of sensory irritation. Although individuals can differ in their sensitivity to odor and eye irritation, the majority of authoritative reviews of the formaldehyde literature have concluded that an air concentration of 0.3 ppm will provide protection from eye irritation for virtually everyone. A weight of evidence-based formaldehyde exposure limit of 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) is recommended as an indoor air level for all individuals for odor detection and sensory irritation. It has recently been suggested by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that formaldehyde is causally associated with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and leukemia. This has led US EPA to conclude that irritation is not the most sensitive toxic endpoint and that carcinogenicity should dictate how to establish exposure limits for formaldehyde. In this review, a number of lines of reasoning and substantial scientific evidence are described and discussed, which leads to a conclusion that neither point of contact nor systemic effects of any type, including NPC or leukemia, are causally associated with exposure to formaldehyde. This conclusion supports the view that the equivocal epidemiology studies that suggest otherwise are almost certainly flawed by identified or yet to be unidentified confounding variables. Thus, this assessment concludes that a formaldehyde indoor air limit of 0.1 ppm should protect even particularly susceptible individuals from both irritation effects and any potential cancer hazard