[chimeracoder]

Instead of just talking about the dangers of a false positive, let's talk about the dangers of false negatives - of ignoring ADHD in children who do actually have it. ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression)

The most dangerous part of this is that it seems to imply ADHD is over-diagnosed in men (boys), when it's just as possible that ADHD is under-diagnosed in women (girls).

Girls diagnosed with 314.10 (Attention Deficit Disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive) tend to exhibit fewer "traditional" symptoms of hyperactivity than boys with the same diagnosis. This isn't to say that the diagnosis is wrong - it's just that hyperactivity manifests in many ways - physical restlessness, "bouncing off the walls", etc. is only one.

> The interesting thing is I never asked any of these people whether ADHD is real. But their defensiveness is understandable. ADHD isn't strep throat—there's no culture, no test. To find out if you have it, or if your son has it, or if your daughter has it, you just need a human being to say so—a physician or a psychiatrist—and that makes some people skeptical

This describes the entire field of psychiatry. While there are certainly some people who are who would distrust the field, I would be very wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And of all disorders, ADHD is actually significantly easier to test for systematically than most psychological/psychiatric disorders (such as depression). The main problem is that the tests to do so are very expensive (well into the thousands of dollars), and most insurance plans won't cover it.

> Ned Hallowell once famously said that stimulants were "safer than aspirin," a statement he has since backed off of. ("That's almost a preposterous statement for anyone to say," says Saltarelli.)

So, we have a complete lowbrow dismissal of what is actually a very reasonable statement. In the end, it's impossible to compare any two drugs for safety because there are so many factors that come into play, but to the extent that one can make a pairwise comparison, this is actually a very well-supported statement.

[foolinaround]

> ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression)

This claim needs citation.

The overall point is that the cost of the false positive overweighs the cost of the false negative

[torkins]

Which article did you read? Not only was there no discussion of the cost of false negatives, there was very little treatment of the actual cost of false positives, just a nebulous assertion that its bad for kids to be on pills.

I would say the point of the article is here is a list of reasons why it might be over-diagnosed, some people on both sides of that, 50% puffed up with human interest pap about the Boy Whisperer

[DanBC]

Medication carries a risk.

One of the most important questions you can ask your doctor is "what happens if we just do watchful waiting?"

Taking meds, with their potential risk, if they provide no benefit is a bad thing.

While ADHD is real and needs treatment some of the people being medicated either have other diagnoses or they have bad parents. This isn't something that should be passed onto the child ("there is something wrong with you, take these meds") when it is the family that is broken ("I need to learn some better parenting techniques; we need to set firmer boundaries").

[rsync]

"... of the actual cost of false positives, just a nebulous assertion that its bad for kids to be on pills."

It's bad for kids to be on pills.

[lotu]

Speaking of needing citations.

[com2kid]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/adhd/comorbid-depression-and...

Is 13% to 27% sufficiently co-morbid for you?

That is just one of the first results for "adhd depression". I've seen studies with cited numbers far higher than that for people who are untreated.