David Gloss1, Jay K Varma1, Tamara Pringsheim1, Marc R Nuwer1. 1. From the Department of Neurology (D.G.), CAMC Physicians, Charleston, WV; Department of Neurology (J.K.V.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (T.P.), University of Calgary, Canada; and Department of Neurological Services (M.R.N.), University of California at Los Angeles.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for EEG theta/beta power ratio for diagnosing, or helping to diagnose, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: We identified relevant studies and classified them using American Academy of Neurology criteria. RESULTS: Two Class I studies assessing the ability of EEG theta/beta power ratio and EEG frontal beta power to identify patients with ADHD correctly identified 166 of 185 participants. Both studies evaluated theta/beta power ratio and frontal beta power in suspected ADHD or in syndromes typically included in an ADHD differential diagnosis. A bivariate model combining the diagnostic studies shows that the combination of EEG frontal beta power and theta/beta power ratio has relatively high sensitivity and specificity but is insufficiently accurate. CONCLUSIONS: It is unknown whether a combination of standard clinical examination and EEG theta/beta power ratio increases diagnostic certainty of ADHD compared with clinical examination alone. RECOMMENDATIONS: Level B: Clinicians should inform patients with suspected ADHD and their families that the combination of EEG theta/beta power ratio and frontal beta power should not replace a standard clinical evaluation. There is a risk for significant harm to patients from ADHD misdiagnosis because of the unacceptably high false-positive diagnostic rate of EEG theta/beta power ratio and frontal beta power. Level R: Clinicians should inform patients with suspected ADHD and their families that the EEG theta/beta power ratio should not be used to confirm an ADHD diagnosis or to support further testing after a clinical evaluation, unless such diagnostic assessments occur in a research setting.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for EEG theta/beta power ratio for diagnosing, or helping to diagnose, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: We identified relevant studies and classified them using American Academy of Neurology criteria. RESULTS: Two Class I studies assessing the ability of EEG theta/beta power ratio and EEG frontal beta power to identify patients with ADHD correctly identified 166 of 185 participants. Both studies evaluated theta/beta power ratio and frontal beta power in suspected ADHD or in syndromes typically included in an ADHD differential diagnosis. A bivariate model combining the diagnostic studies shows that the combination of EEG frontal beta power and theta/beta power ratio has relatively high sensitivity and specificity but is insufficiently accurate. CONCLUSIONS: It is unknown whether a combination of standard clinical examination and EEG theta/beta power ratio increases diagnostic certainty of ADHD compared with clinical examination alone. RECOMMENDATIONS: Level B: Clinicians should inform patients with suspected ADHD and their families that the combination of EEG theta/beta power ratio and frontal beta power should not replace a standard clinical evaluation. There is a risk for significant harm to patients from ADHD misdiagnosis because of the unacceptably high false-positive diagnostic rate of EEG theta/beta power ratio and frontal beta power. Level R: Clinicians should inform patients with suspected ADHD and their families that the EEG theta/beta power ratio should not be used to confirm an ADHD diagnosis or to support further testing after a clinical evaluation, unless such diagnostic assessments occur in a research setting.
Authors: Mark Wolraich; Lawrence Brown; Ronald T Brown; George DuPaul; Marian Earls; Heidi M Feldman; Theodore G Ganiats; Beth Kaplanek; Bruce Meyer; James Perrin; Karen Pierce; Michael Reiff; Martin T Stein; Susanna Visser Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-10-16 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Steven M Snyder; Humberto Quintana; Sandra B Sexson; Peter Knott; A F M Haque; Donald A Reynolds Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Brittany R Alperin; Christiana J Smith; Hanna C Gustafsson; McKenzie T Figuracion; Sarah L Karalunas Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Jeffry P La Marca; Daniel Cruz; Jennifer Fandino; Fabiana R Cacciaguerra; Joseph J Fresco; Austin T Guerra Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 3.575