↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the identification of hyperkinetic disorders following the introduction of government guidelines in England

Overview of attention for article published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the identification of hyperkinetic disorders following the introduction of government guidelines in England
Published in
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, November 2008
DOI 10.1186/1753-2000-2-32
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M Foreman, Tamsin Ford

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis routinely occur in ADHD and hyperkinesis (hyperkinetic disorders). England has introduced governmental guidelines for these disorders' detection and treatment, but there has been no study on clinical diagnostic accuracy under such a regime. All open cases in three Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the South East of England were assessed for accuracy in the detection of hyperkinetic disorders, using a two-stage process employing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for screening, with the cut-off between "unlikely" and "possible" as the threshold for identification, and the Development And Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) as a valid and reliable standard. 502 cases were collected. Their mean age 11 years (std dev 3 y); 59% were clinically diagnosed as having a hyperkinetic disorder including ADHD. Clinicians had missed two diagnoses of hyperkinesis and six of ADHD. The only 'false positive' case was one that had become asymptomatic on appropriate treatment. The identification of children with hyperkinetic disorders by three ordinary English CAMHS teams appears now to be generally consistent with that of a validated, standardised assessment. It seems likely that this reflects the impact of Governmental guidelines, which could therefore be an appropriate tool to ensure consistent accurate diagnosis internationally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 27 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Master 6 20%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Computer Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2021.
All research outputs
#18,438,457
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#555
of 656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,605
of 93,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.