This story on the academic performance of kids with ADHD conveys an impression that is accurate in a very broad way: Elementary school kids who took ADHD meds did better on standardized tests than similar kids who didn’t take meds.
It makes clear that drugs remain one option among several and that behavioral therapy is an important alternative or complement to medication.
It explains that this study is unique because it measures academic achievement not by grading, which is subjective and may be influenced by classroom behavior, but by standardized tests. It puts these findings in a bit of context of similar research.
It uses an anecdote to provide detail about a typical experience, rather than an outlier patient.
Having said that, the story fails to convey essential caveats: That the improvement was quite small, and that due to limitations of the design we don’t know which medications the kids were taking, how severe their condition was, and what other treatments individual kids got [or didn’t] get for their condition. And that for these reasons, the findings are interesting and incremental, but ought not to drive treatment decisions.
The report also fails to report the costs of drugs and non-drug treatment. As has often been mentioned in these reviews, during a time when so much attention is being paid to the cost of care vs. benefits, it is almost always worth including this information, especially about a treatment whose benefits are being discussed.
Another significant shortcoming is a failure to acknowledge side effects of ADHD meds more fully. Any parent considering medications for ADHD needs to view what might be a minor improvement in academic achievement against risks, which rarely can be serious. Readers should have been told more about these risks.
The story does not mention the costs of ADHD medications. While some drugs are generic and cheap, particularly stimulants, other newer ones are more expensive.
The story should have mentioned costs, as a service to consumers and to those pondering the public health costs of various medical interventions in big populations.
The story should have reported the price for behavioral therapy, too, as well as non-medical responses such as tutoring, organizational support, etc.
The story quantifies the findings two ways: in terms of increase in "points" on standardized tests in math [3] and reading [5], and how that translates into months of schooling [3 months in reading, 2 months in math].
This is good as far as it goes.
But the story should have said that over the course of the six years the subjects were studied, these gains are quite small.
It also should have been more precise with the word "points." We assume this means points on a 100-point scale, but this is not specified.
That all said, the story meets the minimum standard for this criterion.
The story mentions the most common side effects of ADHD drugs that concern parents, which include decreased appetite, weight loss and insomnia.
But the story fails to mention the more serious rare side effects, which include increased heart rate and blood pressure, breathing problems, tremors, tics, mood swings and [at the very worst extreme] cardiac problems, confusion, paranoia and hallucinations.
And that’s just for the stimulants.
Side effects of Strattera, for example, include nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. Strattera carries a "black box" warning related to suicide risk.
This is serious stuff. It should have been mentioned in a story whose conclusion is that the drugs have a significant benefit.
The story describes the size, type, duration and study group adequately, but it misses some very important caveats:
These weaknesses in the study itself would not disqualify the study for coverage. But the report should have referred briefly to at least a few–or at least offered a broader, single-sentence caveat about the methodology.
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or severity of ADHD.
The anecdote at the end is a good example of using a personal story that illustrates a typical patient rather than an outlier. It adds useful context about real-life treatment experience.
The report includes the following sources. This is adequate sourcing for a story of this type and size:
The story mentions several treatment options, including behavioral therapy, which one source says should be the first-line treatment. The story repeatedly describes medication as one option, not the only one.
The useful anecdote at the end also suggests that counseling, tutoring and exercise can help manage the condition.
It would have been useful to say that no treatment at all may be the most common response, sometimes done carelessly but other times as a decision.
No specific ADHD drug is mentioned, but the report says that several drugs were used by study participants, mostly stimulants. The story states that about half of young people with ADHD take some type of medication, which implies wide availability.
The story states that this was "the first large, long-term study suggesting this kind of benefit from the widely used drugs."
Because of the number of sources cited – some independent of the study – it’s clear that the story didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like