Jacob N S Jackson1, James MacKillop2. 1. Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research, McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research, McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Homewood Research Institute, Homewood Health Centre, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of studies have investigated delay discounting, a behavioral economic index of impulsivity, and its relevance to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but with mixed findings. The current meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on the relationship between monetary delay discounting and ADHD in studies using case-control designs. Specifically, the objectives were: 1) to characterize the aggregated differences in monetary delay discounting between individuals with ADHD (cases) and controls in studies using categorical case-control designs; 2) to examine potential differences based on sample age (<18 vs. >18), reward outcome (real vs. hypothetical), and prevalence of conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder in the sample; and 3) to evaluate potential small-study (publication) bias in the literature. METHODS: From 567 candidate articles, 21 independent investigations yielded 25 case-control comparisons (total N=3,913). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using Cohen's d as the common effect size. Publication bias was evaluated using fail-safe N, Begg-Mazumdar and Egger tests, and metaregression of publication year and effect size. RESULTS: Across studies, a statistically significant difference of medium magnitude effect size was present for the case-control comparisons (d=0.43; p < 10-15). No significant differences based on sample age, reward outcome, or comorbid status was detected. Minimal heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias was present. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide robust evidence that delay discounting is significantly elevated among individuals with ADHD compared to controls. Gaps in the literature and the importance of characterizing the neural and genetic bases of this relationship are discussed.
BACKGROUND: A growing number of studies have investigated delay discounting, a behavioral economic index of impulsivity, and its relevance to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but with mixed findings. The current meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on the relationship between monetary delay discounting and ADHD in studies using case-control designs. Specifically, the objectives were: 1) to characterize the aggregated differences in monetary delay discounting between individuals with ADHD (cases) and controls in studies using categorical case-control designs; 2) to examine potential differences based on sample age (<18 vs. >18), reward outcome (real vs. hypothetical), and prevalence of conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder in the sample; and 3) to evaluate potential small-study (publication) bias in the literature. METHODS: From 567 candidate articles, 21 independent investigations yielded 25 case-control comparisons (total N=3,913). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using Cohen's d as the common effect size. Publication bias was evaluated using fail-safe N, Begg-Mazumdar and Egger tests, and metaregression of publication year and effect size. RESULTS: Across studies, a statistically significant difference of medium magnitude effect size was present for the case-control comparisons (d=0.43; p < 10-15). No significant differences based on sample age, reward outcome, or comorbid status was detected. Minimal heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias was present. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide robust evidence that delay discounting is significantly elevated among individuals with ADHD compared to controls. Gaps in the literature and the importance of characterizing the neural and genetic bases of this relationship are discussed.
Authors: Danielle M Dick; Gregory Smith; Peter Olausson; Suzanne H Mitchell; Robert F Leeman; Stephanie S O'Malley; Kenneth Sher Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Jeanette C Mostert; A Marten H Onnink; Barbara Franke; Martine Hoogman; Marieke Klein; Janneke Dammers; Anais Harneit; Theresa Schulten; Kimm J E van Hulzen; Cornelis C Kan; Dorine Slaats-Willemse; Jan K Buitelaar Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: Michael M Havranek; Lea M Hulka; Eve Tasiudi; Christoph Eisenegger; Matthias Vonmoos; Katrin H Preller; Rainald Mössner; Markus R Baumgartner; Erich Seifritz; Edna Grünblatt; Boris B Quednow Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Kaylita Chantiluke; Anastasia Christakou; Clodagh M Murphy; Vincent Giampietro; Eileen M Daly; Christina Ecker; Michael Brammer; Declan G Murphy; Katya Rubia Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2014-04-19 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Merideth A Addicott; Julia C Schechter; Jeffrey J Sapyta; James P Selig; Scott H Kollins; Margaret D Weiss Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Michael Amlung; Emma Marsden; Katherine Holshausen; Vanessa Morris; Herry Patel; Lana Vedelago; Katherine R Naish; Derek D Reed; Randi E McCabe Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Max M Owens; Joshua C Gray; Michael T Amlung; Assaf Oshri; Lawrence H Sweet; James MacKillop Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Joshua C Gray; James MacKillop; Jessica Weafer; Kyle M Hernandez; Jianjun Gao; Abraham A Palmer; Harriet de Wit Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: R James R Blair; Johannah Bashford-Largo; Ru Zhang; Jennie Lukoff; Jamie S Elowsky; Ellen Leibenluft; Soonjo Hwang; Matthew Dobbertin; Karina S Blair Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Katherine Rice Warnell; Sydney Maniscalco; Sydney Baker; Richard Yi; Elizabeth Redcay Journal: Autism Res Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 5.216
Authors: Sandra Sanchez-Roige; Pierre Fontanillas; Sarah L Elson; Anita Pandit; Ellen M Schmidt; Johanna R Foerster; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Joshua C Gray; Harriet de Wit; Lea K Davis; James MacKillop; Abraham A Palmer Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 24.884