User talk:RapturousRatling

Welcome!

Hi RapturousRatling! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Jr8825 • Talk 16:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Hey thanks, that's really useful :D Thanks for the welcome RapturousRatling (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

ADHD

As an expert science consultant for the past 18 years, I often had to look past the authors' conclusions to their own clinical trial evidence or what they chose to cite as references. Position papers and metal-analyses can be tainted by what was chosen as inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the instance you raised, my opinion is that the World Fed report did not cite the reviews already in the Wikipedia article, and misrepresented the results of the two meta-analyses it did cite. P.S. My adult daughter has ADHD. I, on the other hand, have what I call ASD (Attention Surplus Disorder). David notMD (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks. How do you feel they misrepresented the results? I'll admit that surprises me as the report had a lot of experts involved in either writing it or reading and endorsing its conclusions. But I'm not well versed in scientific analysis and maybe that doesn't count for as much as I think! They do specify that they only include studies with more than 2000 participants and meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants, so I guess that excluded the studies mentioned on the Wiki page?

In your opinion, is there a concrete reason the sources currently cited in the ADHD article hold more weight than the World Fed report? I've been doing some skimreading but mostly just confusing myself more. Also the cited sources mention very little about adults, but the Wiki article just covers children and adults with the same broad stroke and makes it look like all the conclusions apply to everyone). RapturousRatling (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi RapturousRatling! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help editing erroneous information in ADHD article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)