Study design, baseline patient characteristics and intervention in a cross-cultural framework: results from the ADORE study

OBJECTIVE : To describe the methodology and to present the baseline findings of the Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder Observational Research in Europe (ADORE) study, the primary objective of which is to describe the relationship between treatment regimen prescribed and quality of life of children with ADHD in actual practice. METHODS : In this 2-year prospective observational study, data on diagnosis, prescribed treatment and outcomes of ADHD were collected at seven time points by paediatricians and child psychiatrists on 1,573 children recruited in 10 European countries. The data presented here from the 1,478 patients included in the analyses describe the baseline condition, initial treatment regimen prescribed and quality of life of families with children with ADHD. RESULTS : Patients had a mean age of 9.0 years (SD 2.5) and 84% were male. Physicians diagnoses were made using DSM-IV (43 %), ICD-10 (32%) and both DSM-IV and ICD-10 (12 %). Mean age of awareness of a problem was 5.1 years, suggesting an average delay of approximately 4 years between awareness and diagnosis of ADHD. Baseline ADHD rating scale scores (physicianrated) indicated moderate to severe ADHD. Parent-rated SDQ scores were in agreement and suggested significant levels of co-existing problems. CGI-S, CGAS and CHIPCE scores also indicated significant impairment. Patients were offered the following treatments after the initial assessment: pharmacotherapy (25 %), psychotherapy (19 %), combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy (25 %), other therapy (10 %) and no treatment (21 %). CONCLUSION : The ADORE study shows that ADHD is similarly recognised across 10 European countries and that the children are significantly impaired across a wide range of domains. In this respect, they resemble children described in previous ADHD samples.

Free abdominal fluid without obvious solid organ injury upon CT imaging: an actual problem or simply over-diagnosing?

Whereas a non-operative approach for hemodynamically stable patients with free intraabdominal fluid in the presence of solid organ injury is generally accepted, the presence of free fluid in the abdomen without evidence of solid organ injury not only presents a challenge for the treating emergency physician but also for the surgeon in charge. Despite recent advances in imaging modalities, with multi-detector computed tomography (CT) (with or without contrast agent) usually the imaging method of choice, diagnosis and interpretation of the results remains difficult. While some studies conclude that CT is highly accurate and relatively specific at diagnosing mesenteric and hollow viscus injury, others studies deem CT to be unreliable. These differences may in part be due to the experience and the interpretation of the radiologist and/or the treating physician or surgeon.A search of the literature has made it apparent that there is no straightforward answer to the question what to do with patients with free intraabdominal fluid on CT scanning but without signs of solid organ injury. In hemodynamically unstable patients, free intraabdominal fluid in the absence of solid organ injury usually mandates immediate surgical intervention. For patients with blunt abdominal trauma and more than just a trace of free intraabdominal fluid or for patients with signs of peritonitis, the threshold for a surgical exploration - preferably by a laparoscopic approach - should be low. Based on the available information, we aim to provide the reader with an overview of the current literature with specific emphasis on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to this problem and suggest a possible algorithm, which might help with the adequate treatment of such patients.