Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: The estimates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence across various studies are significantly variable, contributing to uncertainty in ADHD prevalence estimation. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attributed this variability primarily to the methodological characteristics of the studies, including the diagnostic criteria, source of information, and impairment requirement for the diagnosis. METHODS: Review identified studies reporting ADHD prevalence in representative samples of children and adults in Europe and worldwide. Studies that were conducted in the general population were included. We focused on studies that report ADHD prevalence based on clinical diagnosis (clinical diagnostic criteria based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Classification of Diseases criteria, other diagnostic tools, such as various scales or interviews based on clinical diagnostic criteria). PubMed/Medline was searched to identify relevant articles published until 2024/2/01. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020200220) and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 117 studies were subjected to full evaluation. In the meta-analysis, 103 studies representing 159 independent datapoints were included. The overall prevalence of ADHD in register studies was 1.6%, 95% CI 0.9; 3.0, in survey studies 5.0%, 95% CI 2.9; 8.6, in one-stage clinical studies 4.2%, 95% CI 2.9; 6.0, and in two-stage clinical studies 4.8%, 95% CI 4.0; 5.8. CONCLUSIONS: Exact comparisons among studies with different diagnostic criteria and types of sampling can impact prevalence estimates. When comparing data from methodologically different studies, these factors need to be considered.
Popit et al. (Mon,) studied this question.