in the November 2009 issue (2009;41:339-346; doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2009.05.011), Fig 1 contained some errors. The last box in the second row of the flowchart should read “Range 12-28.” The last box in the third row should read “N = 2.” The bottom box should read “N = 3.” The corrected Fig 1 is provided below. GSK2118436 research buy In the second paragraph of the section Autism Diagnostic

Interview-Revised, Diagnostic Algorithm (Age 4-5 Years), the number of children who met all four criteria was incorrect. The corrected sentence reads “Sixteen children met all four criteria for a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder.” In the sixth paragraph of the same section, the incorrect number of children scoring above the cut-point was provided. The corrected sentence reads “Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped behaviors were evident in many of the children, but not all scored above the cut-point for this domain (16/19). The fifth paragraph of the Discussion also contained an error. The corrected sentence reads, “Although no definitive conclusions about

find more mechanisms can be drawn without a large-scale, population-based study of children with dystrophinopathies, future prospective studies could examine whether significant associations exist between presentations of autistic spectrum disorders in children with dystrophinopathies and environmental factors. The authors regret the errors. Figure options Download full-size image Download high-quality image (297 K) Download as PowerPoint slide “
“The irony of predictions such as “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) does not exist” is that once knowledge has advanced enough to settle the question, it is no longer clear what the question meant in the first place. ADHD Does Not Exist” is the title selleck kinase inhibitor of a recent book by neurologist Richard Saul,1 which gives a detailed differential diagnosis of attention deficit, with the noble goal of reducing

the indiscriminant use of stimulant drugs. Similar questions have also been raised in scientific journals, notably by Warren Weinberg and Roger Brumback in their 1992 article “The myth of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: symptoms resulting from multiple causes”.2 Everyone agrees on the basics. Everyone agrees that there is a finding that we term “attention deficit.” Everyone agrees that many diseases, as well as states such as sleep deprivation, have the finding “attention deficit.” The controversy boils down to whether there is at least one disease entity that we would consider to be primary attention deficit, with no other obvious abnormal findings. I am convinced that this is true, within current definitions. The uncertainty in my mind is what we will decide that “obvious” and “abnormal” mean once we have enough knowledge to answer the question.