Optimising medication management in children and young people with ADHD using a computerised test (QbTest): a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Practitioner Review: Clinical utility of the QbTest for the assessment and diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several computerised cognitive tests (e.g. continuous performance test) have been developed to support the clinical assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Here, we appraised the evidence-base underpinning the use of one of these tests - the QbTest - in clinical practice, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating its accuracy and clinical utility.

METHODS

Based on a preregistered protocol (CRD42022377671), we searched PubMed, Medline, Ovid Embase, APA PsycINFO and Web of Science on 15th August 2022, with no language/type of document restrictions. We included studies reporting accuracy measures (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, or Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve, AUC) for QbTest in discriminating between people with and without DSM/ICD ADHD diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). A generic inverse variance meta-analysis was conducted on AUC scores. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a random-effects bivariate model in R.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies (2,058 participants; 48.6% with ADHD). QbTest Total scores showed acceptable, rather than good, sensitivity (0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.69; 0.85]) and specificity (0.70 [0.57; 0.81]), while subscales showed low-to-moderate sensitivity (ranging from 0.48 [0.35; 0.61] to 0.65 [0.52; 0.75]) and moderate-to-good specificity (from 0.65 [0.48; 0.78] to 0.83 [0.60; 0.94]). Pooled AUC scores suggested moderate-to-acceptable discriminative ability (Q-Total: 0.72 [0.57; 0.87]; Q-Activity: 0.67 [0.58; 0.77); Q-Inattention: 0.66 [0.59; 0.72]; Q-Impulsivity: 0.59 [0.53; 0.64]).

CONCLUSIONS

When used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis.

Promoting Medication Adherence in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ADHD medication adherence interventions and explore the pathways to effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using multiple databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pooled effect sizes were calculated for medication adherence and ADHD symptom outcomes. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was used to identify pathways to effectiveness.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. The interventions significantly improved medication adherence (OR = 2.39, 95% CI [1.19, 4.79]) and ADHD symptoms (Hedges' g = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.38, -0.54]). Multi-regression analysis showed a positive relationship between medication adherence and ADHD symptom reduction. QCA revealed two paths for effectiveness: (1) Presence of ADHD drug education and absence of reminder and (2) Presence of tracking and absence of reminder.

CONCLUSION

ADHD medication adherence interventions have a positive impact on both medication adherence and ADHD symptoms. Interventions should consider including ADHD drug education or tracking to maximize effectiveness.

Efficacy of Continuous Performance Testing in Adult ADHD in a Clinical Sample Using QbTest

OBJECTIVE

Continuous performance tests are widely used to aid diagnostic decision making and measure symptom reduction in adult ADHD clinical populations. The diagnostic accuracy of the Quantified Behavior Test plus (QbTest+), developed to identify ADHD populations as an objective measure of ADHD symptoms, was explored.

METHODS

The utility of the QbTest+ was investigated in a clinical cohort of 69 adult patients referred to a specialist ADHD clinic in the UK.

RESULTS

Scores from the QbTest+ failed to differentiate between patients diagnosed with ADHD and those who did not receive a diagnosis after full clinical assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, we recommend clinicians are cautious when interpreting results of the QbTest+ in clinical populations. This study highlights the need for investigation into the lack of validation of commonly used objective measures in ADHD populations.