Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

message: “...they may be to maintain an unusually prolonged level of attention...”
should probably be:
”...they may be able to maintain an unusually prolonged level of attention...” Viewpoint2927 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: --WikiLinuz (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in paragraph 3 

message: Not sure where this can be placed, but the first reference to ADHD can now be pushed back in the medical literature to a Latin text in 1753 by Dutch physician Cornelius Kloekhof, describing a condition closely resembling ADHD. The previously first known references were by Adam Weikard (1770-75) and Alexander Crichton (1798) who describes both an ADHD and CDS-like disorders of attention. See: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10870547241238926 Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool recent discovery; first ADHD reference found in 1753 

message: A comprehensive Cochrane review: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5203.short found very low certainty that Ritalin is more effective than placebo. Cochrane is the GOLD STANDARD for evidence. So, effectiveness of stimulants is actually unknown, contrary to the edits by . 2A00:23C8:A821:8D01:95ED:5D0C:6FE:FD84 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your effort to criticise with the scientific literature, the meta-analysis you cited is seriously flawed. For details, see Banaschewski et al. (2016), Cortese et al. (2016) and Hoekstra et al. (2016) Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no evidence that methylphenidate is actually effective. Remove the claims. 

message: User:Димитрий Улянов Иванов, ScienceDirect topics is a random collection of excerpts that an algorithm thinks may be relevant to the subject. Its content changes all the time so claims based on it are nor verifiable, the quotes on it are out of context which limits their utility, and the authors that wrote the excerpts are not credited when only Topics is cited. That's why its use is deprecated on Wikipedia according to WP:RSP. I'll be removing the citation again but if you can find the paper you were talking about in your edit, I don't have any problem with you adding it in place of the Topics citation. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, sorry for the misplaced citation. My contention was just that it is identified by the International Consensus Statement on ADHD as a reputable source. I will reference that instead. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ScienceDirect Topics 

message: Although the article cites a series of studies suggesting exercise is efficacious for reducing the symptoms of ADHD, the International Consensus Statement on ADHD concluded that exercise has no statistically significant effects due to the results of two comprehensive meta-analyses and systematic reviews.1
Since that is the global scientific consensus, it seems to me that it may need to take priority as a replacement of the statements entirely, as I've seen elsewhere. But would the best course of action be to reference both lines of evidence? Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating the evidence for the efficacy of exercise