Journal
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 309-322Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31802f1454
Keywords
impulsivity; aggression; clinical trials; assessment ethics
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objective: To determine whether impulsive aggression (IA) is a meaningful clinical construct and to ascertain whether it is sufficiently similar across diagnostic categories, such that parallel studies across disorders might constitute appropriate evidence for pursuing indications. If so, how should IA be assessed, pharmacological studies designed, and ethical issues addressed? Method: Experts from key stakeholder communities, including academic clinicians, researchers, practicing clinicians, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, industry sponsors, and patient and family advocates, met for a 2-day consensus conference on November 4 and 5, 2004. After evaluating summary presentations on current research evidence, participants were assigned to three workgroups, examined core issues, and generated consensus guidelines in their areas. Workgroup recommendations were discussed by the whole group to reach consensus, and then further iterated and condensed into this report postconference by the authors. Results: Conference participants agreed that IA is a substantial public health and clinical concern, constitutes a key therapeutic target across multiple disorders, and can be measured with sufficient precision that pharmacological studies are warranted. Additional areas of consensus concerned types of measures, optimal study designs, and ethical imperatives. Conclusion: Derived from scientific evidence and clinical experience, these consensus-driven recommendations can guide the design of future studies.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available