3.9 Review

Review of literature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with comorbid eating disorders

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE PSIQUIATRIA
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 384-389

出版社

ASSOC BRASILEIRA PSIQUIATRIA
DOI: 10.1590/S1516-44462008000400014

关键词

Eating disorders; Bulimia nervosa; Attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity; Comorbidity; Impulsivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: According to studies of prevalence, up to 70% of adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder have at least one psychiatric comorbidity, which leads to diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties as well as more severe functional impairment. There is a paucity of data on the comorbidity of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and eating disorders. The objective of this study was to review the literature regarding the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder/eating disorders comorbidity, performing a critical analysis of relevant data. Method: Articles in Medline, Lilacs, SciELO, ISI and PsycINFO databases from 1980 up to 2008, were searched. The references from the articles were used as additional sources of data. Results: Fourteen articles were found: five prevalence studies, four case reports, three case-control studies, one symptom-assessment study of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and eating disorders, and one article regarding possible causes of the association between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and eating disorders. These articles suggested that adult women with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder are at higher risk of developing eating disorders, especially bulimia nervosa. Bulimia Nervosa rates found in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder groups ranged from 1% to 12%, versus 0% to 2% in control groups. Conclusions: Although there seems to be a relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and eating disorders, the reduced number of studies available, with various methodologies, and small sample sizes limit the generalization of the findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据