Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 4;17(11):e0277175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277175

The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in adult ADHD compared with non-ADHD populations: A systematic literature review

Won-Seok Choi 1,#, Young Sup Woo 2,#, Sheng-Min Wang 2, Hyun Kook Lim 2, Won-Myong Bahk 2,*
Editor: Daimei Sasayama3
PMCID: PMC9635752  PMID: 36331985

Abstract

Comorbid psychiatric disorders in adults with ADHD are important because these comorbidities might complicate the diagnosis of ADHD and also worsen the prognosis. However, the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adult ADHD varies according to the diagnostic tools used and the characteristics of target populations. The purpose of this review was to describe the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adults with ADHD compared with adults without ADHD. Thirty-two studies published before August 2022 were identified and classified according to diagnosis of other psychiatric disorder in those with ADHD. The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was substance use disorder (SUD), followed by mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders. The prevalence of these four disorders was higher in the ADHD group, whether or not subjects were diagnosed with other psychiatric disorders. In addition, the diversity of ADHD diagnostic tools was observed. This also might have affected the variability in prevalence of comorbidities. Standardization of ADHD diagnostic tools is necessary in the future.

Introduction

ADHD(attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) is a common psychiatric disorder presenting persistent inattention and/or with hyperactivity/impulsivity [1], which is associated with considerable problems in personal, social, and occupational areas [2]. While ADHD is well studied in children, it is recently being studied in adults as well. According to a previous meta-analysis, 65% of children who were diagnosed with ADHD have persistent ADHD symptoms in adulthood [3]. In addition, the prevalence of ADHD in adults is known to reach 2.5% [4], which is moderate compared to its prevalence in children, which is about 5% [5].

Although comorbid psychiatric disorders are common in both adults and children, the comorbidity rate is higher in adults; as many as 80% of adults with ADHD are reported to have at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder [68]. In clinical adult ADHD samples, substance use disorder (SUD), mood disorder, anxiety disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) are the most common comorbid disorders [9, 10], and these mental disorders can adversely affect patient prognosis. Furthermore, research revealed that comorbid psychiatric disorders cause considerable functional impairment in individuals with ADHD and place a great burden on society [11].

For this reason, several cross-sectional studies have been conducted on various populations including clinical and general settings over 30 years to evaluate the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric conditions in adults with ADHD. However, the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders varied according to characteristics of the subjects, including country, race, gender, and other socioeconomic characteristics as well as the screening or diagnostic tools applied [10, 12]. Moreover, since ADHD has been recognized in adults, diagnostic tools for adult ADHD and its comorbid disorders have changed over time [13], and the interest in clinical diagnoses and optimal treatments in adults with ADHD has also increased [14]. These factors might have contributed to the divergent prevalence rate of ADHD and comorbid disorders in adults.

However, to the best of our knowledge, despite the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders documented in previous studies in the adult ADHD subjects [10, 11, 15, 16] and their importance in the clinical field, no systematic literature review has specifically compared the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders between adults with and without ADHD. Considering the high prevalence of adult ADHD and its impact on quality of life, a perspective on frequent comorbid psychiatric disorders would be helpful for individuals with ADHD and clinicians. Thus, the aim of our study was to ascertain the difference in the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between adults with and without ADHD including both clinical and general populations.

Methods

Study search and data sources

The methodology of the present review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [17]. Following PRISMA guideline, we conducted research based on PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome). The target population was adults with diagnosed ADHD. We compared the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD patients. We searched electronic libraries of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycNET, and Google Scholar for publications regarding the epidemiology and prevalence rate of comorbidities of adult ADHD published from 1 January 1990 to 1 August 2022. The initial search was conducted by two authors (WSC, YSW) using the following terms: Prevalence AND (ADHD OR ADD OR Attention Deficit) AND Adult AND (comorbidity OR comorbid) in titles or abstracts. Each database was updated as appropriate when preparing this submission for publication. Full electronic search strategies are provided in the S1 Text.

Study selection

First, articles obtained from the initial search were de-duplicated by EndNote 20. Then, inclusion/exclusion screening was performed by lead authors (WSC, YSW) based on exclusion criteria of non-relevant articles (e.g., did not focus on adult patients or did not include psychiatric comorbidity data), non-English articles, full text not available, abstract-only papers, and articles that were not peer-reviewed. We included all types of research except a systematic review or meta-analysis defined by title and method. The initial inclusion/exclusion review was based on titles and abstracts; if the relevance of the article was unclear, a full-text review was performed to determine the eligibility of each study. After this initial process, the full texts of all included articles were retrieved to evaluate our detailed eligibility criteria. Articles were included in the study if they 1) used samples of adult populations aged 18 years or older, 2) defined clear ADHD and non-ADHD groups by clinically diagnoses or using any diagnostic criteria (e.g., DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)) or tools for screening/diagnosing ADHD in adults (e.g., ASRS (Adult ADHD Self-report Scale)), 3) defined the prevalence rate of comorbid psychiatric disorders using any diagnostic tools for each psychiatric disorder (e.g. SCID (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV)), and 4) directly compared ADHD and non- ADHD groups using statistical analysis. Any discrepancy between the two lead authors during study selection was resolved through discussion, and other authors were consulted if necessary. The inclusion consistency between the two authors was 94.1% (32/34).

Data collection process

Microsoft Excel was used to develop a data extraction spreadsheet, and all included full-text articles were reviewed by both researchers (WSC, YSW), who also conducted the initial data search and study selection process. The extracted data were reviewed for consistency, and any queries that arose were resolved by discussion among the researchers. The lead author decided whether to include/exclude data by reviewing the specific articles.

Measurements

Because there are various methods for diagnosing ADHD and psychiatric disorders in adults, we extracted the following variables from the articles ultimately included: 1) data describing the study characteristics, such as year of publication, country, or study design; 2) data describing the target population, like sample size, age range or mean age/SD, or gender composition; 3) diagnostic tools for adult ADHD and comorbid psychiatric disorders, whether clinical diagnosis was performed, and the diagnostic criteria for ADHD/psychiatric comorbidity; 4) study results including the prevalence rate of ADHD in the target population, prevalence rate of each psychiatric comorbidity in each ADHD and non-ADHD group, and any statistically significant comparable variables including odd ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals or chi-square (χ2) test variables.

Classification of studies

Based on several studies targeting nation-wide psychiatric comorbidities [1820], assuming that the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders is higher in groups of psychiatric patients, we decided to divide the study populations into general population group studies and clinical group studies. A clinical group study was defined as one in which the study population included patients who had previously been clinically diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder or had visited/been admitted either voluntarily or involuntarily to a hospital for treatment. A general group study was defined as that in which the whole study population was not diagnosed with any psychiatric disorders before the start of each study.

In addition, considering the specificity that the prevalence of ADHD among incarcerated people was five to 10 times higher than that of the general population [21], and that the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders among inmates was higher than that of the general population [22], we classified data of incarcerated patients separately from other population groups. The incarcerated group study was defined as a study that only included incarcerated participants.

Results

In total, 1768 articles were identified by the search method described above, and 335 duplicates were removed. After the duplicates were excluded, an additional 1121 articles were excluded by screening titles and abstracts. The remaining 292 articles were read in full and included in the analysis if they met the inclusion criteria of our study. Based on our study criteria, 260 articles were excluded for reasons noted in Fig 1. Thus, 32 studies comparing the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD adult subjects were selected for systematic review.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 1

Flow diagram of the manual screening process for eligible literature.

Of the 32 studies comparing the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorder between subjects with and without adult ADHD, according to our classification criteria, 11 studies involved general populations, 18 studies included psychiatric populations, and three studies focused on incarcerated populations. One of the three studies dealing with incarcerated populations involved only female inmates [23], and the other one study involved only male inmates [24].

Diagnostic tools of included studies

In this review, 12 diagnostic tools including clinical diagnostic criteria like DSM or ICD(International Classification of Disease), were used to evaluate adult ADHD. In addition, five diagnostic tools were mainly used for comorbid psychiatric disorders. The most used evaluation tool for adult ADHD was Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) [25, 26], which was used in 12 studies. Five studies used the ASRS alone to evaluate ADHD in adults, and the rest of the studies used more than one tool to evaluate ADHD. The next most frequently used evaluation tools were Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV(CAADID) [27] and the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) [28].

Prevalence of mood disorders

Nineteen studies provided data comparing the prevalence of mood disorders (including depressive disorders and bipolar disorders) between ADHD patients and non-ADHD individuals [6, 16, 2945]. In the general populations, the prevalence of any depressive disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 1.2% [16] to 12.5% [35], compared to 8.6% [36] to 55% [6] in the ADHD group. In clinical populations, the prevalence of any depressive disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 5.8% [32] to 39.6% [34], compared to 15.4% [32] to 39.7% [44] in the ADHD group. In the general population, the prevalence of any bipolar disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 0.2% [35] to 3.6% [16] compared to 4.48% [42] to 35.3% [16] in the ADHD group. In clinical populations, the prevalence of any bipolar disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 2.0% [37] to 19.5% [40], compared to 7.4% [34] to 80.0.% [29] in the ADHD group. There were no differences reported in the prevalence of mood disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD groups in the incarcerated population studies. Detailed information from each study is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Studies comparing the prevalence of mood disorders between non-ADHD and ADHD subjects.

Author Year, Country N % of male Age Assessment of ADHD Assessment of comorbid psychiatric disorder Design Sample Prev.of ADHD(%)
(non-ADHD/ADHD)
Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)
General sample
Solberg et al [43] 2018 Norway 1,701,206 51.2% 18≤ ADHD medication at adult or
ADHD diagnosis registered
ICD-10 Cross-sectional study General sample 2.4% (40,103/1,661,103) Bipolar Disorder Women 13,183 (1.6%) vs 2,290 (12.9%)
Men 9,009 (1.1%) vs 1,981 (8.9%)
Major depressive disorder Women 61,880 (7.6%) vs 5,138 (28.8%)
Men 33,733 (4.0%) vs 4,516 (20.3%)
Chen et al [31] 2018 Norway 5,551,807 50.81% 18–64 ICD-9: 314; ICD-10: F90 diagnosis ICD Cross-sectional study General sample 1.1% (61,129/5,490,678) Depression PR = 9.01 (8.92–9.10)
Bipolar Disorder PR = 19.96 (19.48–20.43)
Hesson and Fowler [35] 2018 Canada 16,957 NA 20–64 Self-report of ADHD (diagnosed by a health professional) WHO-CIDI
modified for the needs of CCHS-MH
Case-control study General sample
-national mental health survey
2.9% (NA) 12-month
Major depressive disorder
61 (12.5%) vs 113 (23.3%) χ2 = 59.94
12-month
Bipolar disorder
1 (0.2%) vs 20 (4.1%) χ2 = 17.73
Yoshimasu et al [16] 2016 US 5,718 NA Mean age
ADHD 30.2
(SD 1.9)
Non-ADHD controls
30.2 (SD 2.0)
Childhood-identified ADHD with M.I.N.I (+) M.I.N.I Case-control study General population–Birth cohort sample NA, (68/335) Hypomanic episode—current or past 12 (3.6%) vs 24 (35.3%) OR adj 16.5 [7.2, 37.4]
Dysthymia 4 (1.2%) vs 11 (16.2%) OR adj 19.0 [5.4, 66.1]
MDD 9 (2.7%) vs 19 (27.9%) OR adj 15.2 [6.2, 37.4]
Park et al [39] 2011 South Korea 6,081 ADHD+ 59.4%
ADHD-
50.5%
18–59 ASRS-S v 1.1 (+) K-CIDI (Korean Ver. of CIDI) Epidemiological study General sample 1.1% (69/6,012) Any mood disorder 6.0% vs 27.1% OR 6.44 [3.70–11.19]
Major depressive disorder 5.5% vs 17.4% OR = 4.00[2.10–7.63]
Bipolar disorder 0.2% vs 8.6% OR 29.94 [10.71–83.66]
Miller et al [38] 2007 US 363 51.0% 18–37 K–SADS & structured interview SCID–I, SCID-II Case-control study General sample
-
Recruited ADHD vs control group
NA, (152/211) Mood disorder NA, χ2 = 23.70
Sobanski et al [6] 2007 Germany 140 54.3% Mean age
ADHD+
36.8 (SD 9.0)
ADHD-
39.8 (SD 10.0)
WURS-K & BADDS SCID-I Case-control study General sample
-referred ADHD vs control group
NA, (70/70) Affective disorders total 18 (25.7%) vs 44 (60.7%) χ2 = 18.462
Major depressive episodes 17 (24.3%) vs 40 (55%) χ2 = 15.010
Kessler et al [36] 2006 US 3,199 NA 18–44 DIS-IV for childhood pathology & ACDS v 1.2 (ADHD-RS) CIDI Epidemiological study General sample–national survey 2.6% (NA) Major depressive disorder 7.8%vs 8.6% 4.2 OR 2.7[1.5–4.9]
Dysthymia 1.9% vs 12.8% OR 7.5 [3.8–15]
Bipolar 3.1% vs 19.4% OR 7.5 [4.6–12.0]
Any mood disorder 11.1% vs 38.3% OR 5.0 [3.0–8.2]
Secnik et al [42] 2005 US 4,504 64.3% 18≤ ICD-9 ICD-9 Case-control study General sample–HPM database (2,252/2,252) Bipolar disorder 0.58% vs 4.48%
Depression 2.93% vs 17.10%
Clinical sample
Woon and Zakaria [45] 2019 Malaysia 120 94.2% 18–65 CAADID M.I.N.I Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample 15.8% (101/19) Manic/hypomanic episode, lifetime 8 (7.9%) vs 8 (42.1%)
Roncero et al [41] 2019 Spain 726 72.5% 18≤ ASRS (14≤) DSM-IV-TR Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–treatment seeking AUD patients 21.1% (573/153) Mood disorder 24.5% vs 49%
χ2 = 32.87, OR 2.95 [2.2, 4.3]
Leung and Chan [37] 2017 Hong Kong 254 28.7% 18–64 ASRS-v1.1 Symptom Checklist≥17 & SDS ≥5 (Screening) + DIVA 2.0 (Diagnosis) DSM-5 Cross-sectional cohort study Psychiatric sample–clinical outpatients 19.3% (49/205) Bipolar disorder 2.0% vs 15.0%
OR = 8.87 (1.83–42.9)
(ADHD-combined type vs Non-ADHD)
Gorlin et al [34] 2016 US 1,134 42% Mean age 39.7 (SD 14.4) DSM-IV based semi-structured clinical interview SCID Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample—clinical outpatients 18.0% (204/903) Major depressive disorder 39.6% vs 29.4% OR = 0. 69 (0.49–0.96)
Bipolar disorder 3.4% vs 7.4% OR = 2.14 (1.09–4.02)
Fatséas et al [33] 2016 France 217 66.4% 18–65 CAADID DSM-IV for SUD
SCIDII for BPD
M.I.N.I. for others
Cross-sectional cohort study Psychiatric sample–addiction clinical outpatients 23.0% (50/167) Current mood disorders 36.8% vs 54.0% 0.030
van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen et al [44] 2014 Australia, Belgium, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, US (IASP study) (37) 1,205 ADHD– 73.1%ADHD + 75.6% 18–65 CAADID MINI Plus
SCID-II
Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample—treatment-seeking SUD patients 13.9% (168/1,037) Current Depression—alcohol 15.3% vs 39.7% OR 4.1 [2.1–7.8]
Current (hypo)mania 4.1% vs 14.9% OR 4.3 [2.1–8.7]
Duran et al [32] 2014 Turkey 246 NA 18–60 WURS score >36 &
Turgay’s Adult ADD/ADHD
Evaluation Scale
SCID-I-CV, SCID-II Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample—clinical outpatients 15.9% (39/207) Dysthymic Disorder 12 (5.8%) vs 6 (15.4%) χ2 = 25.81
Perugi et al [40] 2013 Italy 96 59.4% 18–65 ASRS v 1.1 (+), & prior age 7 with ADHD sx DSM-IV Cross-sectional observation study Psychiatric sample—Bipolar I, II disorder diagnosed 19.8% (19/77) BD I mixed state 14 (18.2%) vs 10 (52.6%) χ2 = 9.6
BD I mania 13 (16.9%) vs 0 (0%)
χ2 = 3.7
BD I remission 15 (19.5%) vs 0 (0%)
χ2 = 0.1
Ceraudo et al [29] 2012 Italy 119 68.1% Mean age ADHD+
35.10 (SD 7.66)
ADHD- 34.74 (SD 8.46)
ASRS-S v 1.1 (+) DCTC (Diagnostic, Clinical and Therapeutic Checklist) Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample

SUD outpatients
18.35% (20/89) Bipolar Disorder 38 (43.2%) vs 16 (80.0%) χ2 = 8.84
Mixed/Manic 15 (16.9%) vs 8 (40.0%) χ2 = 3.29
Olsson et al [30] 2022 Sweden 804 67.3% 18≤ ICD-10 or prescription of ADHD medication ICD-10 Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–psychiatric emergency patient with NSSI 11.6% (711/93) Depression 218 (31%) vs 12 (13%), χ2 = 12.7

OR: Odd Ratio, PR: Prevalence Ratio, NA: Not available (not identified in article)

SUD: Substance Use Disorder, AUD: Alcohol use disorder, BPD: Borderline Personality Disorder BD I: Bipolar I disorder, WHO-CIDI: World Health Organization version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, CCHS-MH: Community Health Survey–Mental Health, M.I.N.I: Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, ASRS-S: Adult Self-Report Scale-Screener, ASRS: Adult Self-Report Scale, CIDI: Composite International Diagnostic Interview, K-SADS: Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, SCID: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SCID-I: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, SCID-I-CV: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Clinician Version, SCID-II: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders, WURS: Wender Utah Rating Scale, WURS-k: German short form of the Wender Utah rating scale, BADDS: Brown attention deficit disorder scale, DIS-IV: Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, ACDS: Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale, ASHD-RS: ADHD Rating Scale, CAADID: Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV, ISAP: International ADHD in Substance use disorder Prevalence, NSSI: Nonsuicidal self-injury

Prevalence of anxiety and related disorders

Sixteen studies provided data comparing the prevalence of anxiety disorders including obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatoform disorders and trauma/stress-related disorders between ADHD patients and non-ADHD individuals [12, 16, 31, 3436, 38, 39, 4143, 4549]. In general population, the prevalence of any anxiety disorders in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 0.5% [39] to 9.5% [36] compared to 4.3% [39] to 47.1% [36] in ADHD group. In clinical populations, the prevalence of any anxiety disorders in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 5.4% [46] to 40% [49] compared to 3.9% [34] to 84% [49] in the ADHD group. Only one study of incarcerated populations showed a difference in the prevalence of social phobia between non-ADHD and ADHD individuals [47]. Detailed information from each study is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Studies comparing the prevalence of anxiety and related disorder between non-ADHD and ADHD subjects.

Author Year Country N % of male Age Assessment of ADHD Assessment of comorbid psychiatric disorder Design Sample Prev. of ADHD(%) (non-ADHD/ADHD) Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)
General sample
Solberg et al [43] 2018 Norway 1,701,206 51.2% 18≤ ADHD medication at adult or
ADHD diagnosis registered
ICD-10 Cross-sectional study General sample 2.4% (40,103/1,661,103) Anxiety Disorders Women 54,479 (6.7%) vs 4,676 (26.3%)
Men 28,364 (3.3%) vs 4,054 (18.2%)
Chen et al [31] 2018 Norway 5,551,807 50.81% 18–64 ICD-9: 314; ICD-10: F90 diagnosis ICD cross-sectional study General sample 1.1% (61,129/5,490,678) Anxiety PR = 9.12 (9.04–9.21)
Hesson and Fowler [35] 2018 Canada 16,957 NA 20–64 Self-report of ADHD (diagnosed by a health professional) WHO-CIDI modified for the needs of CCHS-MH Case-control study General sample
-national mental health survey
2.9% (NA) Generalized anxiety disorder 15 (3.1%) vs 73 (15.1%) χ2 = 42.30
Yoshimasu et al [16] 2016 US 5,718 NA Mean age
ADHD 30.2
(SD 1.9)
Non-ADHD controls
30.2 (SD 2.0)
Childhood-identified ADHD with M.I.N.I (+) M.I.N.I. Case-control study General population–
Birth cohort sample
NA, (68/335) PTSD 3 (0.9%) vs 6 (8.8%)
OR adj. 10.0 [2.9, 35.0]
Social phobia-current 4 (1.2%) vs 10 (14.7%) OR adj 12.8 [4.2, 39.4]
OCD 8 (2.4%) vs 14 (20.6%)
OR adj 8.0 [3.3, 19.2]
Generalized anxiety disorder 30 (9.0%) vs 22 (32.4%) OR adj 4.7 [2.4, 9.0]
Panic disorder–lifetime 17 (5.1) vs 9 (13.2) OR adj 2.6 [1.1, 6.2]
Park et al [39] 2011 South Korea 6,081 ADHD+ 59.4%
ADHD-
50.5%
18–59 ASRS-S v 1.1 (+) K-CIDI (Korean Ver. of CIDI) Epidemiological study General sample 1.1% (69/6,012) Any anxiety disorder 6.3% vs 25.7%
OR 5.46 [3.11–9.57]
OCD 0.6% vs 4.3%
OR 8.26 [2.51–27.26]
PTSD 1.2% vs 7.2%
OR 8.13[3.26–20.32]
Social phobia 0.5% vs 11.4%
OR 7.57 [1.92–29.83]
Specific phobia 3.9% vs 11.4%
OR 3.31 [1.52–7.18]
Somatoform disorder 1.1% vs 4.3%
OR 4.30 [1.22–15.12]
Miller et al [38] 2007 US 363 51.0% 18–37 K–SADS & structured interview SCID–I, SCID-II Case-control study General sample-
Recruited ADHD vs control group
NA, (152/211) Anxiety disorder χ2 = 8.81
Kessler et al [36] 2006 US 3,199 NA 18–44 DIS-IV for childhood pathology & ACDS v 1.2 (ADHD-RS) CIDI Epidemiologic study General sample–national survey 2.6% (NA) GAD 2.6% vs 8.0%
OR 3.2 [1.5–6.9]
PTSD 3.3% vs 11.9%
OR 3.9 [2.1–7.3]
Panic disorder 3.1% vs 8.9% OR 3.0 [1.6–75.9]
Agoraphobia 0.7% vs 4.0% OR 5.5 [1.6–18.5]
Specific phobia 9.5% vs 22.7% OR 2.8 [1.7–4.6]
Social Phobia 7.8% vs 29.3% OR 4.9 [3.1–7.6]
Any anxiety disorder 19.5% vs 47.1% OR 3.7 [2.4–5.5]
Secnik et al [42] 2005 US 4,504 64.3% 18≤ ICD-9 ICD-9 Case-control study General sample–HPM database NA (2,252/2,252) Anxiety disorder 3.46% vs 13.77%
Clinical sample
El Ayoubi et al [49] 2020 France 551 83.8% 18≤ Both ASRS-S v1.1(+) and WURS (26≤) PCL-5 for PTSD Cross-sectional study Psychiatric inpatients with AUD 19.8% (442/109) PTSD 179 (40%) vs 91 (84%) χ2 = 64.7
Woon and Zakaria [45] 2019 Malaysia 120 94.2% 18–65 CAADID M.I.N.I Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample -Forensic ward inpatient 15.8% (101/19) Generalized anxiety disorder 20 (19.8%) vs 9 (47.4%)
Roncero et al [41] 2019 Spain 726 72.5% 18≤ ASRS (14≤) DSM-IV-TR Cross-sectional study Psychiatric patients–treatment seeking AUD patients 21.1% (573/153) Anxiety disorder 10.5% vs 25.8% χ2 = 23.5
OR 2.95 [1.88, 4.64]
Reyes et al [48] 2019 US 472 64.6% 18–80 PRISM PRISM Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–inpatient & outpatient with DSM-IV-TR AUD diagnosis 6.36% (30/442) Anxiety disorders, current 95 (21.5%) vs 14 (46.7%)
Gorlin et al [34] 2016 US 1,134 42% Mean age 39.7 (SD 14.4) DSM-IV based semi-structured clinical interview SCID Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample-clinical outpatient 18.0% (204/903) Social phobia 28.7% vs 38.2% OR = 1.46 (1.05–2.01)
Any adjustment disorder 9.4% vs 3.9%
OR = 0.41 (0.18–0.82)
Retz et al [12] 2016 Germany 163 86.5% Mean age 40.2 (SD 9.4) DSM-5 & WURS-k ≥ 30 ICD-10 Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–GD dx according to ICD-10 25.2% (41-current ADHD/122) Stress and adjustment disorders 14 (8.6%) vs 7 (17.1%) χ2 = 5.70
Karaahmet et al [46] 2013 Turkey 90 53.3% 18≤ Turgay’s Adult ADD/ADHD
Evaluation Inventory & WURS
SCID-I Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample- Bipolar disorder diagnosed 23.3% (21/69) OCD 6 (10.7%) vs 4 (19.0%)
Panic disorder 3 (5.4%) vs 5 (23.8%)
Incarcerated sample
Moore et al [47] 2016 Australia 88 76% 18–72 ASRS-S (+) & M.I.N.I plus (+) M.I.N.I plus, PDQ-4, SCID-II Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample 17.0% (15/73) Social phobia 15.1% vs 46.7% OR = 4.39 [1.10, 17.56]

OR: Odd Ratio, NA: Not available (not identified in article)

PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, OCD: Obsessive-compulsive disorder, GAD: Generalized anxiety disorder, AUD: Alcohol used disorder, GD: Gambling disorder WHO-CIDI: World Health Organization version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, CCHS-MH: Community Health Survey–Mental Health, M.I.N.I: Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, ASRS-S: Adult Self-Report Scale-Screener, ASRS: Adult Self-Report Scale, CIDI: Composite International Diagnostic Interview, K-SADS: Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, SCID-I: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, SCID-II: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders, WURS: Wender Utah Rating Scale, WURS-k: German short form of the Wender Utah rating scale, PRISM: Psychiatric research interview for substance and mental disorders, PDQ-4: Personality disorder diagnostic questionnaire for the DSM-IV

Prevalence of substance use disorders and gambling disorder

Twenty-two studies provided data comparing the prevalence of substance use disorders (including addiction to alcohol, opioids, stimulants, cannabis, anxiolytics, and nicotine) and gambling disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD individuals [6, 12, 16, 23, 24, 3133, 3542, 45, 47, 48, 5052]. In general populations, the prevalence of any substance use disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 0% [6] to 16.6% [39] compared to 2.3% [35] to 41.2% [16] in the ADHD group. In clinical populations, the prevalence of any substance use disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated to be 2.0% [45] to 72.2% [41] compared to 10.0% [48] to 82.9% [41] in the ADHD group. Two studies compared the prevalence of gambling disorder between ADHD and non-ADHD patients, and there was one study for each general/psychiatric population group, showing a statistically significant difference in prevalence [37, 39]. Two studies of incarcerated populations showed differences in the prevalence of benzodiazepine use disorder [47] and drug dependence [23]. Detailed information from each study is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Studies comparing the prevalence of substance use disorder and gambling disorder between non-ADHD and ADHD subjects.

Author, Year Country N % of male Age Assessment of ADHD Assessment of comorbid psychiatric disorder Design Sample Prev.of ADHD(%) (non-ADHD/ADHD) Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)
General sample
Cipollone et al [51] 2020 US 18,913 88.3% Mean age
28.72 in non-ADHD, 28.56 in ADHD
ASRS-S (+) CIDI & CIDI-SAM Cross -sectional study (All army study) General sample–Military sample 6.6% (17,674/1,239) Previous 30-days SUD diagnosis 714 (4.04%) vs 211 (17.03%)
χ2 = 515.36
Lifetime SUD diagnosis 2,639 (14.93%) vs 503 (40.60%) χ2 = 780.16
Alcohol use (type 2—Five or more drinks per day- heavy drinking) 2,064 (12.04%) vs 305 (25.10%) χ2 = 172.07
Capusan et al [50] 2019 Sweden 18,167 40.08% 20–45 DSM-IV criteria SCID-I Population-based epidemiological study General population- Swedish Twin Registry 8.8% (1,598/16,569) Alcohol abuse OR = 1.88 [1.44, 2.46]
Alcohol dependence OR = 3.58 [2.86, 4.49]
Stimulants OR = 2.45 [1.79, 3.35]
Opiates OR = 1.97 [1.65, 2.36]
Cannabis
Illicit drug use
OR = 2.19 [1.80, 2.68]
OR = 2.27 [1.86, 2.76]
Poly-substance use OR = 2.54[2.00, 3.23]
Poly-substance use including alcohol OR = 2.78 [2.21, 3.50]
Chen et al [31] 2018 Norway 5,551,807 50.81% 18–64 ICD-9: 314; ICD-10: F90 diagnosis ICD cross-sectional study General sample 1.1% (61,129/5,490,678) SUD PR = 9.74 (9.62–9.86)
Hesson and Fowler [35] 2018 Canada 16,957 NA 20–64 Self-report of ADHD (diagnosed by a health professional) WHO-CIDI modified for the needs of CCHS-MH Case-control study General sample -national mental health survey 2.9% (NA) 12-month
Alcohol dependence
8 (1.7%) vs 27 (5.6%) χ2 = 10.83 .001
Cannabis abuse 3 (0.6%) vs 13 (2.7%) χ2 = 6.376 .012
Cannabis dependence 3 (0.6%) vs 11 (2.3%) χ2 = 4.605 .032
Other drug dependence 3 (0.6%) vs 17 (3.5%) χ2 = 10.01 .002
Yoshimasu et al [16] 2016 US 5,718 NA Mean age
ADHD 30.2
(SD 1.9)
Non-ADHD controls
30.2 (SD 2.0)
Childhood-identified ADHD with M.I.N.I (+) M.I.N.I. Case-control study General population–
Birth cohort sample
NA, (68/335) Alcohol dependence/abuse 51 (15.2%) vs 28 (41.2%) OR adj 3.6 [2.0, 6.7]
Substance dependence/abuse 22 (6.6%) vs 18 (26.5%) OR adj 4.4 [2.1, 9.1]
Park et al [39] 2011 South Korea 6,081 ADHD+ 59.4%ADHD-
50.5%
18–59 ASRS-S v 1.1 (+) K-CIDI (Korean Ver. Of CIDI) Epidemiological study General sample (69/6,012) Alcohol abuse/dependence 16.6% vs 30.4% OR 1.97 [1.14–3.38]
Nicotine dependence 7.7% vs 20.3%
OR 2.81 [1.50–5.29]
Pathological gambling 0.7% vs 1.4%
OR 8.43 [2.63–26.96]
Miller et al [38] 2007 US 363 51.0% 18–37 K–SADS & structured interview SCID–I, SCID-II Case-control study General sample-
Recruited ADHD vs control group
NA, (152/211) Any ADHD SUD χ2 = 9.22
Sobanski et al [6] 2007 Germany 140 54.3% Mean age
ADHD+
36.8 (SD 9.0)
ADHD-
39.8 (SD 10.0)
WURS-K & BADDS SCID-I Case-control study General sample
-referred ADHD vs control group
NA, (70/70) Substance related disorders total 5 (7.1%) vs 21 (30.0%) χ2 = 12.397
Substances total 2 (2.9%) vs 20 (28.5%) χ2 = 17.806
Substance abuse 2 (2.9%) vs 12 (17.1%) χ2 = 8.104
Substance dependence 0 (0%) vs 8 (11.4%) χ2 = 8.612
Kessler et al [36] 2006 US 3,199 NA 18–44 DIS-IV for childhood pathology & ACDS v 1.2 (ADHD-RS) CIDI Epidemiologic study General sample–national survey 2.6% (NA) Drug dependence 0.1% vs 4.4% OR 7.9 [2.3–27.3]
Any substance disorder 5.6% vs 15.2% OR 3.0 [1.4–6.5]
Secnik et al [42] 2005 US 4,504 64.3% 18≤ ICD-9 ICD-9 Case-control study General sample–HPM database NA, (2,252/2,252) Drug or alcohol abuse 1.87% vs 5.11%
Clinical sample
Valsecchi et al [52] 2021 Italy 590 47.2% 18–70 ASRS-S v1.1 (+) and DIVA 2.0 both(+) M.I.N.I Plus cross-sectional observational study Psychiatric outpatients 5.12% (590/44) Substance abuse, lifetime 15.1% vs 29.6% χ2 = 6.34
Substance abuse, actual 6.6% vs 25.0% χ2 = 19.06
Substance use, lifetime 30.5% vs 54.6% χ2 = 10.84 .001
Substance use, actual 8.3% vs 29.6% χ2 = 20.93 .000
Woon and Zakaria [45] 2019 Malaysia 120 94.2% 18–65 CAADID M.I.N.I Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample -Forensic ward inpatient 15.8% (101/19) Alcohol abuse 2 (2.0%) vs 3 (15.8%) 0.028
Roncero et al [41] 2019 Spain 726 72.5% 18≤ ASRS (14≤) DSM-IV-TR Cross-sectional study Psychiatric patients–treatment seeking AUD patients 21.1% (573/153) Cannabis dependence 18% vs 30.9% χ2 = 12.3 OR 2.04 [1.36, 3.06]
Cocaine dependence 24.6% vs 53.3% χ2 = 46.5 OR 3.5 [2.41, 5.07]
Smoking dependence 72.2% vs 82.9% χ2 = 6.9 OR 1.86 [1.16, 2.98]
Reyes et al [48] 2019 US 472 64.6% 18–80 PRISM PRISM Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–inpatient & outpatient with DSM-IV-TR AUD diagnosis 6.36% (30/442) Cannabis abuse, Current 41 (9.3%) vs 8 (26.7%)
Amphetamine abuse, current 17 (3.9%) vs 4 (13.3%)
Opioid abuse, current 9 (2.0%) vs 3 (10.0%)
Leung and Chan [37] 2017 Hong Kong 254 28.7% 18–64 ASRS-v1.1 ≥17 & SDS ≥5(Screening) + DIVA 2.0 (Diagnosis) DSM-5 cross-sectional cohort study Psychiatric sample–clinical outpatients 19.3% (49/205) Chronic alcohol use (2.4% vs 8.2%)
Problematic gambling (1% vs 2%)
Active substance use (3.9% vs. 8.2%)
Retz et al [12] 2016 Germany 163 86.5% Mean age 40.2 (SD 9.4) DSM-5 & WURS-k ≥ 30 ICD-10 Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–GD dx according to ICD-10 25.2% (41-current ADHD/122) Substance use disorders 4’50 (30.7%) vs 19 (46.3%) χ2 = 6.50
Fatséas et al [33] 2016 France 217 66.4% 18–65 CAADID DSM-IV for SUD
SCID-II for BPD
M.I.N.I for others
Cross-sectional cohort study Psychiatric sample–addiction outpatient clinic 23.0% (50/167) Cannabis dependence 25.9% vs 58.0%
Duran et al [32] 2014 Turkey 246 NA 18–60 WURS score >36 & Turgay’s Adult ADD/ADHD
Evaluation Scale
SCID-I-CV, SCID-II Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample
- outpatient visit patient
15.9% (39/207) Other Substance Abuse 12 (5.8%) vs 7 (18.0%) χ2 = 28.81
Perugi et al [40] 2013 Italy 96 59.4% 18–65 ASRS v 1.1 (+), & prior age 7 with ADHD sx DSM-IV Cross-sectional observation study Psychiatric sample- Bipolar I, II disorder diagnosed 19.8% (19/77) Alcohol 7 (9.1%) vs 5 (26.3%) χ2 = 4.1
Substance use disorder 14 (18.2%) vs 8 (42.1%) χ2 = 7.1
Incarcerated sample
Moore et al [47] 2016 Australia 88 76% 18–72 ASRS-S (+) & M.I.N.I plus (+) M.I.N.I plus, PDQ-4, SCID-II Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample 17.0% (15/73) Benzodiazepine dependence (lifetime) 13.7% vs 53.3 OR = 5.30 ([1.30, 21.72])
Konstenius et al [23] 2015 Sweden 96 0% Mean age 39.7 ASRS-S(+) & CAADID M.I.N.I Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample- only women 29% (16/40) Drug dependence 58% vs 100%
Capuzzi et al [24] 2022 Italy 108 100% 18–65 WURS-25 & ASRS V1.1 DSM-5 Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample- only men 32.4% (35/73) Cannabis use disorder 40 (54.8%) vs 25 (71.4%)
Cocaine use disorder 47 (64.4%) vs 32 (91.4%)

OR: Odd Ratio, PR: Prevalence Ratio, NA: Not available (not identified in article)

SUD: Substance Use Disorder, AUD: Alcohol use disorder, GD: Gambling disorder CIDI: Composite International Diagnostic Interview, CIDI-SAM: CIDI-Substance Abuse Module, SCID-I: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, WHO-CIDI: World Health Organization version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, M.I.N.I: Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, CAADID: Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV, ASRS-S: Adult Self-Report Scale-Screener, ASRS: Adult Self-Report Scale, BADDS: Brown attention deficit disorder scale, PRISM: Psychiatric research interview for substance and mental disorders SDS: Sheehan Disability Scale, DIVA: Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults, WURS: Wender Utah Rating Scale, WURS-k: German short form of the Wender Utah rating scale, PDQ-4: Personality disorder diagnostic questionnaire for the DSM-IV, SCID-I-CV: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Clinician Version

Prevalence of personality disorders

Fourteen studies provided data comparing the prevalence of personality disorders (including borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder) between ADHD and non-ADHD individuals [12, 16, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34, 38, 4144, 47, 53]. In general populations, the prevalence of any personality disorders in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 0% [42] to 3.9% [16] compared to 0.31% [42] to 33.8% [16] in the ADHD group. In clinical populations, the prevalence of any personality disorder in the non-ADHD group was estimated at 6.6% [33] to 34.4% [12] compared to 21.9% [34] to 65.95% [12] in the ADHD group. Two studies of incarcerated populations showed differences in the prevalence of borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The prevalence of antisocial personality disorder was higher in the ADHD group in both studies [23, 47], and the prevalence of borderline personality disorder was higher in one study [47]. Detailed information from each study is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Studies comparing the prevalence of personality disorder between non-ADHD and ADHD subjects.

Author Year Country N Male; % Age Assessment of ADHD Assessment of comorbid psychiatric disorder Design Sample Prev.of ADHD(%) (non-ADHD/ADHD) Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)
General sample
Solberg et al [43] 2018 Norway 1,701,206 51.2% 18≤ ADHD medication at adult or ADHD diagnosis registered ICD-10 Cross-sectional study General sample 2.4% (40,103/1,661,103) Personality disorder Women 14,079 (1.7%) vs 2,428 (13.6%)
Men 8909 (1.1%) vs 2030 (9.1%)
Yoshimasu et al [16] 2016 US 5,718 NA Mean age
ADHD 30.2
(SD 1.9)
Non-ADHD controls
30.2 (SD 2.0)
Childhood-identified ADHD with M.I.N.I (+) M.I.N.I. Case-control study General population–
Birth cohort sample
NA, (68/335) Antisocial personality disorder 13 (3.9%) vs 23 (33.8%) OR adj 12.2 [5.3, 27.9]
Miller et al [38] 2007 US 363 51.0% 18–37 K–SADS & structured interview SCID–I, SCID-II Case-control study General sample-
Recruited ADHD vs control group
NA, (152/211) ASPD (Any ADHD) χ2 = 7.32
Secnik et al [42] 2005 US 4504 64.3% 18≤ ICD-9 ICD-9 Case-control study General sample–HPM database NA, (2,252/2,252) Antisocial disorder
Oppositional disorder
0% vs 0.31%
0.04% vs 0.53%
Clinical sample
Sánchez-García et al [53] 2021, Puerto-rico, Hungary, Australia 402 79.6% 18–65 CAADID M.I.N.I Plus Cross-sectional study Psychiatric inpatients & outpatients with SUD 35.75% (257/143) ASPD
BPD
25.41% vs 53.90% OR 3.26 [2.09, 5.08]
20.82% vs 57.45% OR 5.48 [3.40, 8.83]
Roncero et al [41] 2019 Spain 726 72.5% 18≤ ASRS (14≤) DSM-IV-TR Cross-sectional study Psychiatric patients–treatment seeking AUD patients 21.1% (573/153) Any personality disorder 14.8% vs 37.4%
χ2 = 38.17 .0001 OR 3.45 [2.29, 5.17]
Gorlin et al [34] 2016, US 1,134 42% Mean age 39.7 (SD 14.4) DSM-IV based semi-structured clinical interview SCID Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample-clinical outpatient 18.0% (204/903) Borderline personality disorder 7.6% vs 21.9% OR = 3.11 (2.02–4.76)
Retz et al [12] 2016 Germany 163 86.5% Mean age 40.2 (SD 9.4) DSM-5 & WURS-k ≥ 30 ICD-10 Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–GD dx according to ICD-10 25.2% (41-current ADHD/122) Personality disorders
Cluster B
56 (34.4%) vs 27 (65.9%) χ2 = 26.84
11 (6.7%) vs 7 (17.1%) χ2 = 30.49
Fatséas et al [33] 2016 France 217 66.4% 18–65 CAADID DSM-IV for SUD
SCID-II for BPD
M.I.N.I for others
Cross-sectional cohort study Psychiatric sample–addiction outpatient clinic 23.0% (50/167) Antisocial personality disorder
Borderline personality disorder
6.6% vs 26.0%
13.0% vs 34.7%
van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen et al [44] 2014 Australia, Belgium, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, US (IASP study) (37) 18–65 CAADID M.I.N.I Plus
SCID-II
Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample- treatment-seeking SUD patients 13.9% (168/1,037) ASPD
BPD
17.0% vs 51.8% OR 2.8 [1.8–4.2]
-alcohol 8.2% vs 34.5% OR 7.0 [3.1–15.6]
-drugs 16.7% vs 29.0% OR 3.4 [1.8–6.4]
Olsson et al [30] 2022 Sweden 804 67.3% 18≤ ICD-10 or prescription of ADHD medication ICD-10 Cross-sectional study Psychiatric sample–psychiatric emergency patient with NSSI 11.6% (711/93) Personality disorder 142 (20%) vs 28 (30), χ2 = 5.07
Incarcerated sample
Moore et al [47] 2016 Australia 88 76% 18–72 ASRS-S (+) & MINI plus (+) M.I.N.I plus, PDQ-4, SCID-II Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample 17.0% (15/73) BPD
ASPD
13.7% vs 60.0% OR = 7.34 ([1.72, 31.37])
27.4% vs 93.3% OR = 26.00 ([2.58, 262.30])
Konstenius et al [23] 2015 Sweden 96 0% Mean age 39.7 ASRS-S (+) & CAADID M.I.N.I Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample- only women 29% (16/40) ASPD 30% vs 81%
Capuzzi et al [24] 2022 Italy 108 100% 18–65 WURS-25 & ASRS V1.1 DSM-5 Cross-sectional study Incarcerated sample- only men 32.4% (35/73) Personality disorders 26 (35.6%) vs 21 (60.0%)

OR: Odd Ratio, NA: Not available (not identified in article)

SUD: Substance Use Disorder, AUD: Alcohol use disorder, GD: Gambling disorder BPD: Borderline Personality Disorder, ASPD: Antisocial personality disorder

SCID: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, M.I.N.I: Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, ASRS-S: Adult Self-Report Scale-Screener, ASRS: Adult Self-Report Scale, CAADID: Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV, WURS-k: German short form of the Wender Utah rating scale, K-SADS: Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, PDQ-4: Personality disorder diagnostic questionnaire for the DSM-IV

HPM: Health and Productivity Management

ISAP: International ADHD in Substance use disorder Prevalence

Discussion

In our systematic review, we included 32 studies conducted over 16 years dealing with the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities between adults with and without ADHD. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review comparing the prevalence of comprehensive comorbid psychiatric disorders between adults with and without ADHD and including both general and clinical populations. Articles published from 2006 to 2022 were included in this review. This might because the interest in adult ADHD had increased based on the results of longitudinal follow-up studies on children and adolescents with ADHD [54, 55].

The studies included in this review most commonly used ASRS as a diagnostic tool for adult ADHD (12 of 32), followed by CADDID and WURS. As a self-report scale, due to its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, ASRS can be preferred by ADHD investigators. However, the variability in the evaluation tools for adult ADHD is thought to be due to the lack of established diagnostic criteria [56]. Many psychiatric disorders are diagnosed based on observation of an assessor and complaint of a patient. The lack of standardized diagnostic tools can lead to over-diagnosis or under-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders [57, 58] and can cause inconsistency in diagnosis, which complicates comparison studies [59, 60]. Heterogeneity of diagnostic tools observed in this study not only prevented meta-analysis, but also might affect the variability in the reported prevalence of adult ADHD.

In addition, the prevalence of ADHD in adults varied from 1.1% [39] to 8.8% [50] in general population samples and from 5.12% [52] to 35.75% [53] in psychiatric population samples. A previous systematic review of ADHD prevalence in and adult psychiatric population shows a similar range, from 6.9% to 38.75% [61]. In this previous study [61], the authors assumed that this variation might be due to the diversity of diagnostic methods and the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the studies. Similarly, in our study, the aforementioned variability of diagnostic methodologies for ADHD might have affected this various range of prevalence. In a general population, the estimated mean prevalence rate of ADHD in adults was 2.8% in a previous study [15]. Except in two studies included in our review, targeting special populations of army soldiers [51] and twins of Sweden [50], which had higher than estimated prevalence, the range of ADHD prevalence in the general population was 1.1% to 2.9% in our study, similar to that previously observed [11, 56].

The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, its prevalence ranging from 2.3% and 41.2% in the general population and between 10.0% and 82.9% in the clinical population; two of three studies showed significant prevalence difference between ADHD and non-ADHD subjects. This finding correlates with a previous meta-analysis that reported that almost one out of every four adolescent and adult patients with SUD presents with ADHD [62, 63], which supports SUD as one of the most frequent comorbid psychiatric conditions in adult ADHD. There are some theoretical opinions of shared key characteristics and pathophysiology between ADHD and SUD, like dopaminergic dysregulation of motivational and reward systems, or reduced frontal function including executive functions and response inhibition [64, 65]. In addition, considering that childhood ADHD is a prominent risk factor for substance misuse and development of SUD due to the most frequent comorbidities in childhood ADHD, like conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder [66], untreated and preserved ADHD in adults might have influenced the cross-sectional difference of prevalence rate between ADHD and non- ADHD patients.

Mood disorders, including depressive disorders and bipolar disorders, were also frequently observed comorbid psychiatric disorders in ADHD subjects compared to non-ADHD subjects. The estimated prevalence of depressive disorders in the ADHD group ranged from 8.6% to 55% in the general population and 15.4% to 39.7% in the clinical population. Also, the prevalence of bipolar disorder in the ADHD group was estimated at 4.45% to 35.3% in the general population and 7.4% to 80.8% in the clinical population. For depression, previous studies have also shown a higher prevalence of depressive disorders in young adults with ADHD compared to non-ADHD subjects as well as higher risk of suicidal behavior [67, 68]. This can be explained by a previous cross-sectional study showing the association between ADHD symptoms and depressive symptoms in young adults as identified by low hedonic responsivity [69]. In addition, according to biologic aspects of depression and ADHD, the two disorders might share similar pathophysiologic regions of the brain including decreased activity in the prefrontal [70, 71], amygdala, and hippocampus regions [7274]. Furthermore, 10 studies showed a higher prevalence of bipolar disorder, including current hypomania diagnosed by SCID-II, in ADHD subjects than in non-ADHD subjects. Considering that the worldwide prevalence rate of bipolar disorder is estimated as 1–3% [75, 76], which was similar to that of the non-ADHD general population in our study, the prevalence of bipolar disorder in the ADHD group was greater than 3% in all 10 studies. This finding correlated with previous studies reporting reciprocal high comorbidity rates between ADHD and bipolar disorder, which suggests possible shared genetic effects or diagnostic overlap between the two disorders [77].

In anxiety disorder, almost two of three studies showed a higher prevalence in the ADHD group than the non-ADHD group. The prevalence rate in the ADHD group was estimated to range from 4.3% to 47.1% in the general population and from 3.9% to 84% in the clinical population. Only one study of a clinical population dealing with psychiatric outpatients in the US [34] showed a higher prevalence of adjustment disorder in the non-ADHD group. These findings correlate with previous studies that revealed a high prevalence of anxiety in the adult ADHD population [78, 79]. ADHD seems to show different characteristics from anxiety, namely fearlessness and impulsivity. Therefore, various theories have been suggested to explain this phenomenon using developmental or biologic aspects in children and adolescents [80]. Similarly, in adults, as far as we know, the two disorders have been related to several common neuroanatomical regions like the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or the anterior cingulate cortex, which are critically involved with the executive function control network [10]. In addition, considering a previous study about increased risk of accidents in ADHD over the lifespan [81], traumatic events might have influenced the higher prevalence of anxiety disorders. From a developmental viewpoint, as in depressive disorders, this frequently higher prevalence of anxiety disorder might represent the social and relational difficulties induced by ADHD.

The estimated prevalence of personality disorders in the ADHD group was ranged from 0.31% to 33.8% in the general population and from 21.9% to 65.95% in the clinical population. Previous studies have reported that personality disorders, mostly cluster B or C personality disorders, are present in almost 50% of adults with ADHD [82]. The association between ADHD and personality disorders might be mediated by the symptomatic dimensions of ADHD such as emotional dysregulation and oppositional symptoms [83]. In our review, most studies showed a higher prevalence of cluster B personality disorders in ADHD than in non-ADHD groups. Specifically, in the clinical population, more than 20% of adult ADHD subjects were estimated to have comorbid cluster B personality disorder including borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Additionally, most clinical population studies included patients diagnosed with substance use disorders, which correlates with previous observational studies of young male adults with ADHD that revealed associations of antisocial personality disorder with ADHD [84].

Limitations

There are several limiting factors in this review. As mentioned previously, there is significant heterogeneity across studies diagnosing both ADHD and comorbid psychiatric disorders. This prohibited meta-analysis. Furthermore, except for two international studies [44, 53], the included studies were conducted in high-income regions like Europe or North America. In a previous epidemiologic study investigating cross-national ADHD prevalence in adults [15], the prevalence differed by country income, with higher rates observed in higher-income countries. This difference in prevalence among countries affects the degree of interest in the disease, which might be why the included studies were mainly conducted in Europe and North America. In addition, we did not differentiate patients according to ADHD or comorbid psychiatric disorder treatment status, which might also have affected the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders. Of the included studies, most explored the prevalence cross-sectionally, so we could not infer a correlation or antecedent relationship between ADHD and comorbidities. Only limited estimates of the associations between ADHD and comorbidities can be provided by our review at the study level. Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias in each study. To include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries, populations, and comorbid psychiatric disorders, we omitted the risk of bias assessment. Also, there was no pre-registration for our systematic literature review. These points are limitations to this study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our findings indicate a higher prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in ADHD subjects compared to non-ADHD subjects, whether they were previously diagnosed with other psychiatric disorders or not. Furthermore, our results suggest a complex association between the multiple comorbidities of ADHD. Given that ADHD is often unrecognized and under-diagnosed in adults, screening for ADHD might be beneficial for patients presenting multiple psychopathologies including substance abuse, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders. In the future, research on standardization of ADHD diagnosis in adults and its comorbid psychopathologies will be required to distinguish adult ADHD from comorbid psychiatric disorders, and to enable comparison among study conditions. This standardization will aid in differential diagnosis and allow provision of earlier treatment in adult ADHD. In addition, research on the neurobiological and developmental bases of ADHD and its comorbid psychiatric disorders should continue to improve the understanding of the connectivity and associations between various comorbid psychiatric disorders and ADHD in adults.

Supporting information

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Text. Article search strategy.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shaw M, Hodgkins P, Caci H, Young S, Kahle J, Woods AG, et al. A systematic review and analysis of long-term outcomes in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: effects of treatment and non-treatment. BMC Med. 2012;10:99. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-99 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Faraone SV, Biederman J, Mick E. The age-dependent decline of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analysis of follow-up studies. Psychol Med. 2006;36(2):159–65. doi: 10.1017/S003329170500471X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Simon V, Czobor P, Bálint S, Mészáros Á, Bitter I. Prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194(3):204–11. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.048827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Polanczyk G, de Lima MS, Horta BL, Biederman J, Rohde LA. The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(6):942–8. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sobanski E, Brüggemann D, Alm B, Kern S, Deschner M, Schubert T, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity and functional impairment in a clinically referred sample of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007;257(7):371–7. doi: 10.1007/s00406-007-0712-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Faraone SV, Biederman J. Neurobiology of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 1998;44(10):951–8. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(98)00240-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Seo J-C, Jon D-I, Shim S-H, Sung H-M, Woo YS, Hong J, et al. Prevalence and Comorbidities of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Among Adults and Children/Adolescents in Korea. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2022;20(1):126–34. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2022.20.1.126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Biederman J, Faraone SV, Spencer T, Wilens T, Norman D, Lapey KA, et al. Patterns of psychiatric comorbidity, cognition, and psychosocial functioning in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(12):1792–8. doi: 10.1176/ajp.150.12.1792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Katzman MA, Bilkey TS, Chokka PR, Fallu A, Klassen LJ. Adult ADHD and comorbid disorders: clinical implications of a dimensional approach. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):302. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1463-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fayyad J, de Graaf R, Kessler R, Alonso J, Angermeyer M, Demyttenaere K, et al. Cross-national prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:402–9. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.034389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Retz W, Ringling J, Retz-Junginger P, Vogelgesang M, Rösler M. Association of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with gambling disorder. J Neural Transm. 2016;123(8):1013–9. doi: 10.1007/s00702-016-1566-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kooij JJS, Bijlenga D, Salerno L, Jaeschke R, Bitter I, Balázs J, et al. Updated European Consensus Statement on diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD. Eur Psychiatry. 2019;56:14–34. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Raman SR, Man KKC, Bahmanyar S, Berard A, Bilder S, Boukhris T, et al. Trends in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder medication use: a retrospective observational study using population-based databases. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(10):824–35. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30293-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fayyad J, Sampson NA, Hwang I, Adamowski T, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Al-Hamzawi A, et al. The descriptive epidemiology of DSM-IV Adult ADHD in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2017;9(1):47–65. doi: 10.1007/s12402-016-0208-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yoshimasu K, Barbaresi WJ, Colligan RC, Voigt RG, Killian JM, Weaver AL, et al. Adults With Persistent ADHD: Gender and Psychiatric Comorbidities—A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. J Atten Disord. 2016;22(6):535–46. doi: 10.1177/1087054716676342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021;10(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Andrews G, Slade T, Issakidis C. Deconstructing current comorbidity: data from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:306–14. doi: 10.1192/bjp.181.4.306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bijl RV, Ravelli A, van Zessen G. Prevalence of psychiatric disorder in the general population: results of The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998;33(12):587–95. doi: 10.1007/s001270050098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Plana-Ripoll O, Pedersen CB, Holtz Y, Benros ME, Dalsgaard S, de Jonge P, et al. Exploring Comorbidity Within Mental Disorders Among a Danish National Population. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(3):259–70. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Young S, Moss D, Sedgwick O, Fridman M, Hodgkins P. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in incarcerated populations. Psychol Med. 2015;45(2):247–58. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714000762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fazel S, Seewald K. Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(5):364–73. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Konstenius M, Larsson H, Lundholm L, Philips B, van de Glind G, Jayaram-Lindström N, et al. An epidemiological study of ADHD, substance use, and comorbid problems in incarcerated women in Sweden. J Atten Disord. 2015;19(1):44–52. doi: 10.1177/1087054712451126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Capuzzi E, Capellazzi M, Caldiroli A, Cova F, Auxilia AM, Rubelli P, et al. Screening for ADHD Symptoms among Criminal Offenders: Exploring the Association with Clinical Features. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(2). doi: 10.3390/healthcare10020180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Adler L, Kessler RC, Spencer T. Adult ADHD self-report scale-v1. 1 (ASRS-v1. 1) symptom checklist. New York, NY: World Health Organization. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kessler RC, Adler L, Ames M, Demler O, Faraone S, Hiripi E, et al. The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychol Med. 2005;35(2):245–56. doi: 10.1017/s0033291704002892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Epstein J, Johnson DE, Conners CK. Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV™. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ward MF, Wender PH, Reimherr FW. The Wender Utah Rating Scale: an aid in the retrospective diagnosis of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(6):885–90. doi: 10.1176/ajp.150.6.885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ceraudo G, Toni C, Vannucchi G, Rizzato S, Casalini F, Dell’Osso L, et al. Is substance use disorder with comorbid adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar disorder a distinct clinical phenotype? Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems. 2012;14(3):71–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Olsson P, Wiktorsson S, Strömsten LM, Salander Renberg E, Runeson B, Waern M. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults who present with self-harm: a comparative 6-month follow-up study. BMC psychiatry. 2022;22(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chen Q, Hartman CA, Haavik J, Harro J, Klungsøyr K, Hegvik TA, et al. Common psychiatric and metabolic comorbidity of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A population-based cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Duran S, Nurhan F, Ali K, Bilici M, ÇAliskan M. ADHD in Adult Psychiatric Outpatients: Prevalence and Comorbidity: Turkish Journal of Psychiatry. Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2014;25(2):84–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fatséas M, Hurmic H, Serre F, Debrabant R, Daulouède J-P, Denis C, et al. Addiction severity pattern associated with adult and childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in patients with addictions. Psychiatry Res. 2016;246:656–62. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.10.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gorlin EI, Dalrymple K, Chelminski I, Zimmerman M. Diagnostic profiles of adult psychiatric outpatients with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;70:90–7. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hesson J, Fowler K. Prevalence and correlates of self-reported ADD/ADHD in a large national sample of Canadian adults. J Atten Disord. 2018;22(2):191–200. doi: 10.1177/1087054715573992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kessler RC, Adler L, Barkley R, Biederman J, Conners CK, Demler O, et al. The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(4):716–23. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.4.716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Leung VMC, Chan LF. A cross-sectional cohort study of prevalence, co-morbidities, and correlates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder among adult patients admitted to the Li Ka Shing psychiatric outpatient clinic, Hong Kong. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2017;27(2):63–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Miller TW, Nigg JT, Faraone SV. Axis I and II comorbidity in adults with ADHD. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007;116(3):519–28. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Park S, Cho MJ, Chang SM, Jeon HJ, Cho S-J, Kim B-S, et al. Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidities of adult ADHD symptoms in Korea: Results of the Korean epidemiologic catchment area study. Psychiatry Res. 2011;186(2–3):378–83. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.07.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Perugi G, Ceraudo G, Vannucchi G, Rizzato S, Toni C, Dell’Osso L. Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms in Italian bipolar adult patients: A preliminary report. J Affect Disord. 2013;149(1–3):430–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Roncero C, Ortega L, Pérez-Pazos J, Lligoña A, Abad AC, Gual A, et al. Psychiatric Comorbidity in Treatment-Seeking Alcohol Dependence Patients With and Without ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2019;23(12):1497–504. doi: 10.1177/1087054715598841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Secnik K, Swensen A, Lage MJ. Comorbidities and Costs of Adult Patients Diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(1):93–102. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523010-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Solberg BS, Halmøy A, Engeland A, Igland J, Haavik J, Klungsøyr K. Gender differences in psychiatric comorbidity: A population‐based study of 40 000 adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2018;137(3):176–86. doi: 10.1111/acps.12845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.van Emmerik‐van Oortmerssen K, van de Glind G, Koeter MWJ, Allsop S, Auriacombe M, Barta C, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity in treatment‐seeking substance use disorder patients with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Results of the IASP study. Addiction. 2014;109(2):262–72. doi: 10.1111/add.12370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Woon LSC, Zakaria H. Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in a Malaysian forensic mental hospital: A cross-sectional study. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2019;29(4):118–23. doi: 10.12809/eaap1851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Karaahmet E, Konuk N, Dalkilic A, Saracli O, Atasoy N, Kurçer MA, et al. The comorbidity of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in bipolar disorder patients. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54(5):549–55. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2012.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Moore E, Sunjic S, Kaye S, Archer V, Indig D. Adult ADHD Among NSW Prisoners: Prevalence and Psychiatric Comorbidity. J Attent Disord. 2016;20(11):958–67. doi: 10.1177/1087054713506263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Reyes MM, Schneekloth TD, Hitschfeld MJ, Karpyak VM. Impact of sex and ADHD status on psychiatric comorbidity in treatment-seeking alcoholics. J Attent Disord. 2019;23(12):1505–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.El Ayoubi H, Brunault P, Barrault S, Maugé D, Baudin G, Ballon N, et al. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Is Highly Comorbid With Adult ADHD in Alcohol Use Disorder Inpatients. J Attent Disord. 2020:1087054720903363. doi: 10.1177/1087054720903363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Capusan AJ, Bendtsen P, Marteinsdottir I, Larsson H. Comorbidity of Adult ADHD and Its Subtypes With Substance Use Disorder in a Large Population-Based Epidemiological Study. J Attent Disord. 2019;23(12):1416–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cipollone G, Gehrman P, Manni C, Pallucchini A, Maremmani AGI, Palagini L, et al. Exploring the role of caffeine use in adult-ADHD symptom severity of US army soldiers. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11):1–10. doi: 10.3390/jcm9113788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Valsecchi P, Nibbio G, Rosa J, Tamussi E, Turrina C, Sacchetti E, et al. Adult ADHD: Prevalence and Clinical Correlates in a Sample of Italian Psychiatric Outpatients. J Attent Disord. 2021;25(4):530–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sánchez-García NC, González RA, Ramos-Quiroga JA, Van Den Brink W, Luderer M, Blankers M, et al. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Increases Nicotine Addiction Severity in Adults Seeking Treatment for Substance Use Disorders: The Role of Personality Disorders. Eur Addict Res. 2020;26(4–5):191–200. doi: 10.1159/000508545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Biederman J, Faraone SV, Taylor A, Sienna M, Williamson S, Fine C. Diagnostic continuity between child and adolescent ADHD: findings from a longitudinal clinical sample. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;37(3):305–13. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199803000-00016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Biederman J, Mick E, Faraone SV. Age-dependent decline of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: impact of remission definition and symptom type. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(5):816–8. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Song P, Zha M, Yang Q, Zhang Y, Li X, Rudan I. The prevalence of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2021;11. doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.04009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Zimmerman M. A Review of 20 Years of Research on Overdiagnosis and Underdiagnosis in the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(2):71–9. doi: 10.1177/0706743715625935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Newson JJ, Hunter D, Thiagarajan TC. The heterogeneity of mental health assessment. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:76. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wisco BE, Miller MW, Wolf EJ, Kilpatrick D, Resnick HS, Badour CL, et al. The impact of proposed changes to ICD-11 on estimates of PTSD prevalence and comorbidity. Psychiatry Res. 2016;240:226–33. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Linden M, Muschalla B. Standardized diagnostic interviews, criteria, and algorithms for mental disorders: garbage in, garbage out Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012;262(6):535–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Gerhand S, Saville CW. ADHD prevalence in the psychiatric population. International Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2021:1–13. doi: 10.1080/13651501.2021.1914663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.van der Burg D, Crunelle CL, Matthys F, van den Brink W. Diagnosis and treatment of patients with comorbid substance use disorder and adult attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder: a review of recent publications. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2019;32(4). doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen K, van de Glind G, van den Brink W, Smit F, Crunelle CL, Swets M, et al. Prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in substance use disorder patients: A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;122(1):11–9. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Sharma A, Couture J. A Review of the Pathophysiology, Etiology, and Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ann Pharmacother. 2013;48(2):209–25. doi: 10.1177/1060028013510699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ. Imaging studies on the role of dopamine in cocaine reinforcement and addiction in humans. J Psychopharmacol. 1999;13(4):337–45. doi: 10.1177/026988119901300406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Groenman AP, Janssen TWP, Oosterlaan J. Childhood Psychiatric Disorders as Risk Factor for Subsequent Substance Abuse: A Meta-Analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017;56(7):556–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fitzgerald C, Dalsgaard S, Nordentoft M, Erlangsen A. Suicidal behaviour among persons with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(4):615–20. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2019.128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Babinski DE, Neely KA, Ba DM, Liu G. Depression and suicidal behavior in young adult men and women with ADHD: evidence from claims data. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020;81(6):0–. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m13130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Meinzer MC, Pettit JW, Leventhal AM, Hill RM. Explaining the Covariance Between Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms and Depressive Symptoms: The Role of Hedonic Responsivity. J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(10):1111–21. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Arnsten AFT. The Emerging Neurobiology of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: The Key Role of the Prefrontal Association Cortex. J Pediatr. 2009;154(5):I–S43. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Treadway MT, Waskom ML, Dillon DG, Holmes AJ, Park MTM, Chakravarty MM, et al. Illness progression, recent stress, and morphometry of hippocampal subfields and medial prefrontal cortex in major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;77(3):285–94. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.06.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Perlov E, Philipsen A, Tebartz van Elst L, Ebert D, Henning J, Maier S, et al. Hippocampus and amygdala morphology in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2008;33(6):509–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Frodl T, Stauber J, Schaaff N, Koutsouleris N, Scheuerecker J, Ewers M, et al. Amygdala reduction in patients with ADHD compared with major depression and healthy volunteers. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2010;121(2):111–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01489.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Onnink AMH, Zwiers MP, Hoogman M, Mostert JC, Kan CC, Buitelaar J, et al. Brain alterations in adult ADHD: Effects of gender, treatment and comorbid depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;24(3):397–409. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2013.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Merikangas KR, Akiskal HS, Angst J, Greenberg PE, Hirschfeld RMA, Petukhova M, et al. Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of Bipolar Spectrum Disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(5):543–52. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.5.543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Merikangas KR, Jin R, He J-P, Kessler RC, Lee S, Sampson NA, et al. Prevalence and Correlates of Bipolar Spectrum Disorder in the World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):241–51. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Schiweck C, Arteaga-Henriquez G, Aichholzer M, Edwin Thanarajah S, Vargas-Cáceres S, Matura S, et al. Comorbidity of ADHD and adult bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;124:100–23. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Piñeiro-Dieguez B, Balanzá-Martínez V, García-García P, Soler-López B. Psychiatric Comorbidity at the Time of Diagnosis in Adults With ADHD: The CAT Study. J Atten Disord. 2016;20(12):1066–75. doi: 10.1177/1087054713518240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Reimherr FW, Marchant BK, Strong RE, Hedges DW, Adler L, Spencer TJ, et al. Emotional Dysregulation in Adult ADHD and Response to Atomoxetine. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;58(2):125–31. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Schatz DB, Rostain AL. ADHD with comorbid anxiety: a review of the current literature. J Attent Disord. 2006;10(2):141–9. doi: 10.1177/1087054706286698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Brunkhorst-Kanaan N, Libutzki B, Reif A, Larsson H, McNeill RV, Kittel-Schneider S. ADHD and accidents over the life span—A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;125:582–91. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Olsen JL, Reimherr FW, Marchant BK, Wender PH, Robison RJ. The effect of personality disorder symptoms on response to treatment with methylphenidate transdermal system in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2012;14(5). doi: 10.4088/PCC.12m01344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Reimherr FW, Marchant BK, Williams ED, Strong RE, Halls C, Soni P. Personality disorders in ADHD Part 3: Personality disorder, social adjustment, and their relation to dimensions of adult ADHD. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2010;22(2):103–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Estévez N, Dey M, Eich-Höchli D, Foster S, Gmel G, Mohler-Kuo M. Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and its association with substance use and substance use disorders in young men. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016;25(3):255–66. doi: 10.1017/S2045796015000360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Soumitra Das

25 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-17093The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bahk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Dear Authors Thanks for submitting this paper to our journal The paper has significant value in adding to existing science however it needs modification as suggested by our reviewers There are 4 reviewers as its a systematic reviewI would like you to modify the paper and incorporate all the suggestions if possibleregards and good luck 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Soumitra Das

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review, 'The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review'. The manuscript describes a systematic review of the relation between psychiatric comorbidities and Adult ADHD. The authors found the most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was substance use disorder (SUD), followed by mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders. This review covers an important area of research in need of synthesis and guidance for future studies. This review also has a particular strength in synthesizing data into four psychiatric categories (4 tables) and across three population groups. However, there are several significant concerns that affect the review's contribution in its current state. One overall major concern is many important components of a systematic review process were either not reported, poorly structured, or presented, in accordance with PRISMA protocol. There are insufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication. It also makes the establishment of arguments and synthesis of data very difficult to comprehend. The most notable concerns are described below:

1. P. 10, More information is needed to describe the study selection process, e.g. The number of researchers who conducted the screening of titles and abstracts, and the process of managing disagreement between the reviewers during the screening process. The range of publication years that were searched.

2. P. 11, '.....and the full-text articles were reviewed randomly by two researchers....' needs further clarification. It is unclear what 'randomly' means. Did both researchers review all the full-text articles? The percentage of full-text articles reviewed by each reviewer should be reported. The percentage of inclusion consistency between the two reviewers should also be mentioned.

3. P. 12, whereas a clinical group study was defined, it is suggested that a general population group study should also be defined. '...A clinical group study was defined as one in which the study population included patients who had previously been clinically diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder....' This study examined 'psychiatric comorbidities', readers would expect that a certain percentage of individuals in the 'general population' may also have a psychiatric disorder. Thus, a clear explanation to distinguish both may be needed. The authors also mentioned 'incarcerated people', a clear definition of incarcerated population specific to the current study should also be considered. In the results section, the authors actually classified studies into three categories, i.e. Clinical, general, and incarcerated. In this case, further descriptions of the incarcerated population would be required in both the introduction and method sections.

4. Given the search was completed about one year ago (22 July, 2021) (p.10), the authors may consider updating the search.

5. According to PRISMA checklist, a risk of bias assessment should be conducted and reported in both Methods and Results sections; which is not presented in the current manuscript.

6. Suggest the authors report if the review was pre-registered in the method section.

7. Suggest updating the PRISMA 2020 checklist (S1 Table): e.g. '20a Results of syntheses' were presented on p.13-15, now is presented as NA

8. There is room to improve the presentation of the tables to increase clarity, e.g. The information presented in 'Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)' could be presented in separate columns; consider to delete the comment column and to use a footnote to provide an additional comment if needed; author year and country could be reported in separate columns, consider not to report the number of male participants but has a separate column to report the percentage of male, etc.

9. In the discussion section, suggest the findings of different use of diagnostic tools, i.e. '...in this review......in adults' p.37, should be reported in the results section. Those information was not mentioned in the results section previously. The authors mentioned in the abstract that 'Standardization of ADHD diagnostic tools is necessary in the future'(p.8). Arguments to support this conclusion needs to be further established in the discussion and conclusion sections.

10. In the limitations section, the authors discussed heterogeneity across studies and other risks of bias issues (P. 41). However those concepts were not thoroughly explored before. Suggest the authors consider reporting that information in the results section, under risk of bias in studies and/or reporting biases. In the limitations section, the authors may consider suggesting future research directions to address the current limitations.

11. In the conclusion section (p.35-36), the authors provided suggestions of future research (.e.g.... to clarify the aspects to treat and improve the quality of life and the functional and psychosocial impairments of individuals with ADHD....), however, those recommendations seem not to be strongly linked to/supported by the current findings. The authors may need to consider establishing a strong conclusion based on the current key findings and the original research question.

Reviewer #2: 1. This systematic review is based on heterogenous sample of studies which results in significant heterogeneity in the results obtained but this has been identified in the limitations section.

2. In my opinion the statistical analysis performed is standard and appropriate

3. The authors have provided access to all their findings.

4. The manuscript has been presented well in with a good written standard of English.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to revise the systematic review manuscript. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Overall, the manuscript has been well written. However, I believe the authors could further improvise the manuscript if they consider responding to the following comments.

Major comments

1. Introduction:

The Introduction section mentions that the aim of the review was to estimate the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adults with and without ADHD. However, the authors use varying terms in the texts such as degree, incident rates and prevalence rates at different instances. I suggest the authors clarify this. Also, please strengthen the rationale for the need of this systematic review.

2. Methods:

The authors mention following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) as the methodology and the flow diagram is also provided. That is good.

My concern is if the authors could provide detailed information on the PRISMA guide in terms of the population characteristics, comparators, outcome, studies etc. I suggest the authors to include this information in the methods section.

The authors quoted five electronic libraries to be used while searching for the relevant articles. However, the search term given is Prevalence AND (ADHD OR ADD OR Attention Deficit) AND Adult AND (comorbidity or comorbid) in titles or abstracts. To my knowledge, the search terms operate differently for different databases, so please clarify on the search terms used to screen for articles in the 5 databases.

Study selection:

While the authors mention the initial inclusion/ exclusion review was conducted, I suggest the authors give information on the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, the authors mention relevance of the article and describe that if they were found irrelevant, full texts were reviewed. Please provide what do the authors mean when they say relevant articles in the context of the review.

Did the authors include all study types, except for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? I would suggest the authors to be explicit in which study types were included and if they were determined before the study started.

Data collection:

The full text articles were reviewed randomly by two researchers (WSC, YSW). Please clarify what the authors meant by saying randomly. Was it not decided beforehand who will do what in the review process amongst the authors?

3. Results

Tables:

The authors have included several studies where age groups are < 18 years while, they mention one of the inclusion criteria was age more than 18 years.

Also, for other studies included there were those aged 16-65 and 16-70 years. Please specify the age groups for inclusion since the study focus was on adults.

4. Discussion

The authors are advised to discuss on why the studies of 15 years are included. In other words, what was the earliest year of study inclusion? If you did not find studies before that year, what could be the reasons?

The authors are also suggested to cite the articles used in the text. For instance, when the authors say that the range of ADHD prevalence in the general population was 1.1-2.9% in their study, similar to previously observed.

The authors cite social and relational difficulties in ADHD as possible reasons for increased frequency of anxiety disorders. Please clarify on this statement.

I also suggest the authors to discuss on what could be the reasons for studies mostly available from high income countries such as Europe and North America.

5. Other important points

Systematic review protocols are required to be registered before you start the review process to avoid duplications and assist in transparency of the work. There are various options for registration such as PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry etc.

In the manuscript submitted, I do not see the registration number. Could the authors include the registration number and the registry where the protocol has been registered.

The authors have not described if they have used quality control for the studies included. In other words, risk of bias assessment is one of the most important steps in any systematic review and metanalysis. Also, who did the quality assessment of the studies included?

Minor comments

The article type mentioned in the manuscript file is research article, while the manuscript submitted is systematic review. So, I suggest the authors to change the name of the article type.

In the title, the authors mention systematic literature review instead if just systematic review. Do the authors have specific reason for this?

There are several grammatical errors throughout the text. I suggest the authors do a thorough grammatical check and proof reading while reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewer #4: This study examines the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in ADHD populations and contributes to the evidence base in this area through the systematic review conducted by the authors of the paper.

The introduction is adequate - but there are minor errors that should be corrected i.e. replace impulsiveness with impulsivity, add 'with' following presenting, replace high incident rates with 'high incidence rates' to correct these errors.

Methodology - adequately explained - but again, there are errors in the first sentence 'the methodology of the present review was followed by PRISMA' should be replaced by 'the methodology of the present review followed PRISMA protocol'. I would recommend here that the statistical analyses used should be explained further.

Results - I would recommend adding a section on psychotic illnesses and personality disorders as these are relevant and included in the results table.

Discussion - This section is adequate, but again has a few errors - replace 'variety' by 'variation', rewrite the sentence on 'the most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder is SUD, ranging from...' include 'its prevalence ranging from...'

The article would benefit from proofreading to correct grammatical and syntactical errors.

A major limitation is the heterogeneity of these studies - this has been acknowledged.

Overall, I think the article addresses an important area and I recommend revising it for publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Saraswati Dhungana

Reviewer #4: Yes: Karishma Kulkarni

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-17093.pdf

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 4;17(11):e0277175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277175.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Aug 2022

Responses to the Reviewer’s comment

28 August, 2022

Dear reviewers and editorial staffs of PLOS ONE

We are sincerely grateful for your thorough consideration and scrutiny of our manuscript, “The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review”, control number PONE-D-22-17093. Through the accurate comments made by the reviewers, we better understand the critical issues in this paper. We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewer’s suggestions. We hope that our revised manuscript will be considered and accepted for publication in the PLOS ONE. We acknowledge that the scientific and clinical quality of our manuscript was improved by the scrutinizing efforts of the reviewers and editors.

The changes within the revised manuscript were highlighted in blue at 'Response to Reviewers. docx' file. Point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are provided below.

Reviewer #1:

1. P. 10, More information is needed to describe the study selection process, e.g. The number of researchers who conducted the screening of titles and abstracts, and the process of managing disagreement between the reviewers during the screening process. The range of publication years that were searched.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have now presented the number and rolls of researchers participated in study selection and data extraction process. We also added the range of publication “from 1 January 1990 to 22 July 2021”. “prior to June 22, 2021” which represented the search period before the revision process, thought to be an ambiguous description. Thank you for the reviewer’s comment for accurate description of the searching period.

2. P. 11, '.....and the full-text articles were reviewed randomly by two researchers....' needs further clarification. It is unclear what 'randomly' means. Did both researchers review all the full-text articles? The percentage of full-text articles reviewed by each reviewer should be reported. The percentage of inclusion consistency between the two reviewers should also be mentioned

Author’s response : We appreciated the reviewer’s comment. We wanted to mean that both two researchers reviewed all article which was selected by them in any order. Therefore, we changed these description more exactly and clarify the sentence. We also specified the percentage of inclusion consistency reviewed by each investigator at ‘Study selection’ section. Thank you for the reviewer’s consideration for accurate description of study selection process. The revised study selection and data collection process section is shown below :

…Microsoft Excel was used to develop a data extraction sheet, and the whole included full-text articles were reviewed randomly by two researchers (WSC, YSW) in duplicate who also conducted the initial data search and study selection process.

3. P. 12, whereas a clinical group study was defined, it is suggested that a general population group study should also be defined. '...A clinical group study was defined as one in which the study population included patients who had previously been clinically diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder....' This study examined 'psychiatric comorbidities', readers would expect that a certain percentage of individuals in the 'general population' may also have a psychiatric disorder. Thus, a clear explanation to distinguish both may be needed. The authors also mentioned 'incarcerated people', a clear definition of incarcerated population specific to the current study should also be considered. In the results section, the authors actually classified studies into three categories, i.e. Clinical, general, and incarcerated. In this case, further descriptions of the incarcerated population would be required in both the introduction and method sections.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We have clarified how to define study groups. The core criterion for classifying study group is whether any psychiatric disorders except ADHD were diagnosed for whole study population before the each study started. That is why we descripted the prevalence of psychiatric disorders except ADHD separately at each population groups. And also we have added definition for ‘incarcerated population’ method section. Thank you for the reviewer’s comment for accurate description of the classification of studies. The revised text for description of target population is shown below :

…A general group study was defined as a study in which the whole study population was not diagnosed with any psychiatric disorders before the start of each study.

…The incarcerated study group was defined as the study only included those incarcerated in prison facility as participants.

4. Given the search was completed about one year ago (22 July, 2021) (p.10), the authors may consider updating the search.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We updated the searched articles after 22 July 2021. We conducted searches up to August 1, 2022 using the same inclusion & exclusion criteria for each database. As a result, 2 more studies were included to our review. We also updated the flow chart, tables and manuscript. Updated numbers and searching strategy of articles are presented at Supplement 2.

5. According to PRISMA checklist, a risk of bias assessment should be conducted and reported in both Methods and Results sections; which is not presented in the current manuscript.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. We agree that assessment of ROB (risk of bias) in each studies is important and should be conducted for high quality systematic reviews. However, in our review, we did not performed meta-analysis or statistical synthesis with extracted data, but we summarized and re-arranged the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in multiple studies comparing ADHD and non-ADHD adults to examine the trend of the difference of each comorbid psychiatric disorders. In order to include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries, populations and comorbid psychiatric disorders, we did not assess the quality or ROB of each included studies. This is also why we presented our study as a systematic literature review. Consequently, this is critical limitation point of our review. Therefore, we revised our limitation section that we did not evaluated the risk of bias. Instead, we assessed the risk of bias of our review using AMSTAR-2 tool, and presented it in limitation section. We hope that this could be the explanation for not assessing ROB of each studies which could affect the limited results of our review. The revised text for limitation section is shown below :

…Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias in each studies. In order to include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries, populations and comorbid psychiatric disorders, we skipped the risk of bias assessment. When our review was evaluated by AMSTAR-2 (85), which evaluates the quality of systematic review studies, our review was rated as low quality review.

85. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.

6. Suggest the authors report if the review was pre-registered in the method section.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. We agree that pre-registration needed to improve the quality and reliability of research. However, due to our study was systematic literature review scoping for summarizing and providing overview about prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adult ADHD, we could not register our study in PROSPERO. This point is important limitation of this study, so we presented this points in limitation section. The revised text for limitation section is shown below.

…Also, there was no pre-registration for our systematic literature review. These points raise limitations to this study.

7. Suggest updating the PRISMA 2020 checklist (S1 Table): e.g. '20a Results of syntheses' were presented on p.13-15, now is presented as NA

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. We have confirmed the error in PRISMA 2020 checklist and updated that part as NA to p.13-15. Thank you for the opportunity to correct the mistake according to the reviewer's point.

8. There is room to improve the presentation of the tables to increase clarity, e.g. The information presented in 'Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)' could be presented in separate columns; consider to delete the comment column and to use a footnote to provide an additional comment if needed; author year and country could be reported in separate columns, consider not to report the number of male participants but has a separate column to report the percentage of male, etc.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We agree with reviewer and edited our tables as recommended to improve the presentation of results clearly. We divided author, year and country of study in different column. And also we separated 'Findings comparing non-ADHD and ADHD and prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders non-ADHD, n (%) vs ADHD, n (%)' section as two divided columns for clarifying the results. And we deleted the comment column and switch the information to footnotes. Thank you for the reviewer’s comment for clarifying the table of study results.

9. In the discussion section, suggest the findings of different use of diagnostic tools, i.e. '...in this review......in adults' p.37, should be reported in the results section. Those information was not mentioned in the results section previously. The authors mentioned in the abstract that 'Standardization of ADHD diagnostic tools is necessary in the future'(p.8). Arguments to support this conclusion needs to be further established in the discussion and conclusion sections.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We modified our manuscript as the reviewer suggested. In result section, we added ‘Diagnostic tools of included studies’ paragraph separately and presented the results. And in discussion section, we established some arguments to support our conclusion. According to previous studies, heterogeneity of diagnostic tools can cause inconsistencies in diagnosis. This also makes it difficult to compare the diagnostic characteristic of study population across studies. We added the reference for the need of standardized diagnosis in adult ADHD for suitable comparison of studies about disease prevalence. The revised discussion section is shown below :

However, variability in the evaluation tools for adult ADHD was observed and is thought to be due to the lack of established diagnostic criteria for ADHD in adults, which was previously argued in systematic review about ADHD prevalence in adults (56). Psychiatric disorder is characterized by being diagnosed with observation of assessor and complaint of patient. Non-standardized diagnostic tools can lead to over-diagnosis or under-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders (57, 58) , and also cause inconsistency in diagnosis which makes comparisons between studies difficult. (59, 60) Heterogeneity of diagnostic tools observed in this study not only made meta-analysis impossible, but also might affect the diversity of the prevalence of adult ADHD.

56. Song P, Zha M, Yang Q, Zhang Y, Li X, Rudan I. The prevalence of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Glob. Health. 2021;11.

57. Zimmerman M. A Review of 20 Years of Research on Overdiagnosis and Underdiagnosis in the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(2):71-9. doi: 10.1177/0706743715625935. PubMed PMID: 27253697; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4784239.

58. Newson JJ, Hunter D, Thiagarajan TC. The heterogeneity of mental health assessment. Front. Psychiatry. 2020;11:76.

59. Wisco BE, Miller MW, Wolf EJ, Kilpatrick D, Resnick HS, Badour CL, et al. The impact of proposed changes to ICD-11 on estimates of PTSD prevalence and comorbidity. Psychiatry Res. 2016;240:226-33.

60. Linden M, Muschalla B. Standardized diagnostic interviews, criteria, and algorithms for mental disorders: garbage in, garbage out. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012;262(6):535-44.

10. In the limitations section, the authors discussed heterogeneity across studies and other risks of bias issues (P. 41). However those concepts were not thoroughly explored before. Suggest the authors consider reporting that information in the results section, under risk of bias in studies and/or reporting biases. In the limitations section, the authors may consider suggesting future research directions to address the current limitations.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. The bias issue that we mentioned in the limitation section is a wrong presentation of our study. As the reviewer mentioned, we did not assess bias of each included studies which could affect the quality of our systematic literature review. This is one of the important limitations of our study. We now have deleted the sentence at limitation section.

11. In the conclusion section (p.35-36), the authors provided suggestions of future research (.e.g.... to clarify the aspects to treat and improve the quality of life and the functional and psychosocial impairments of individuals with ADHD....), however, those recommendations seem not to be strongly linked to/supported by the current findings. The authors may need to consider establishing a strong conclusion based on the current key findings and the original research question.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. The sentence was described differently from the meaning we originally intend to suggest. We revised and clarified our suggestion to future research. The revised conclusion section is shown below :

…In the future, research on standardization of ADHD diagnosis in adults and its comorbid psychopathologies is required to distinguish adult ADHD from comorbid psychiatric disorders and to enable comparison between the results from different study conditions. Which could help for differential diagnosis and providing earlier treatment to adult ADHD individual.

Reviewer #2:

1. This systematic review is based on heterogenous sample of studies which results in significant heterogeneity in the results obtained but this has been identified in the limitations section.

2. In my opinion the statistical analysis performed is standard and appropriate

3. The authors have provided access to all their findings.

4. The manuscript has been presented well in with a good written standard of English.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Thank you for the reviewer's compliment and encouragement of our study.

Reviewer #3:

1. Introduction:

The Introduction section mentions that the aim of the review was to estimate the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adults with and without ADHD. However, the authors use varying terms in the texts such as degree, incident rates and prevalence rates at different instances. I suggest the authors clarify this. Also, please strengthen the rationale for the need of this systematic review.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. We have clarified and replaced the terms that meant the prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The psychiatric disorders associated with adult ADHD have a long-lasting effect on a patient's life, but they are difficult to differentiate with ADHD and presented as turbid and heterogeneous phenotype. Therefore, we clarify and strengthen the rationale of purpose for our study in Introduction section. Revised introduction section is shown below :

However, to the best of our knowledge, despite the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders documented in previous studies in the adult ADHD subjects (10, 11, 15, 16) and their importance in the clinical field, no systematic literature review has specifically compared the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders between adults with and without ADHD. Considering the high prevalence and the impact on quality of life, establishing a perspective on frequent comorbid psychiatric disorders in adult ADHD would be helpful for individuals with ADHD and clinicians. Thus, the aim of our study was to ascertain the difference in the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between adults with and without ADHD including both clinical and general populations.

2. Methods:

The authors mention following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) as the methodology and the flow diagram is also provided. That is good.

My concern is if the authors could provide detailed information on the PRISMA guide in terms of the population characteristics, comparators, outcome, studies etc. I suggest the authors to include this information in the methods section.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We added new information about research question using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) of our study and the several components of PRISMA guideline which need to be explained in our study in ‘Study search and data source’ in method section. The revised paragraph is shown below :

…Following PRISMA guideline, we have conducted research question by PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome). Target population were adults with ADHD (P) who were diagnosed with any diagnostic tools (I). We compared the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD patients (C,O).

The authors quoted five electronic libraries to be used while searching for the relevant articles. However, the search term given is Prevalence AND (ADHD OR ADD OR Attention Deficit) AND Adult AND (comorbidity or comorbid) in titles or abstracts. To my knowledge, the search terms operate differently for different databases, so please clarify on the search terms used to screen for articles in the 5 databases.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We agree that additional information for search terms should be provided. We added additional supplement (Supplement 2) that describe the search strategy and numbers of articles for each five database.

Study selection:

While the authors mention the initial inclusion/ exclusion review was conducted, I suggest the authors give information on the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, the authors mention relevance of the article and describe that if they were found irrelevant, full texts were reviewed. Please provide what do the authors mean when they say relevant articles in the context of the review.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We agree that additional information for study selection process. We have reviewed abstracts and titles of the selected articles initially. If the information in titles or abstracts of each article were unclear or insufficient, a full-text review for each article was performed to define whether sufficient information were present in main-text. We have clarified the study selection process. The revised study selection section is shown below :

…The initial inclusion/exclusion review was completed based on titles and abstracts, and if the relevance of the article was unclear, a full-text review was performed to define eligibility of each studies.

Did the authors include all study types, except for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? I would suggest the authors to be explicit in which study types were included and if they were determined before the study started.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your suggestion. We agree that additional information for included study types in our review. We clarified the included study types in study selection section. We purposed to include all study types except reviews or meta-analysis because we tried to collect studies which directly comparing the population groups whether diagnosed ADHD or not. As a result, RCTs were not included in our review, and there were only cross-sectional studies. Revised text in study selection section is shown below :

We selected all types of research including primary studies, but except a systematic review or meta-analysis defined by title and method.

Data collection:

The full text articles were reviewed randomly by two researchers (WSC, YSW). Please clarify what the authors meant by saying randomly. Was it not decided beforehand who will do what in the review process amongst the authors?

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. The selected articles were reviewed by both two authors. We have clarified the data collection process and revised the sentence. Revised data collection section is presented at answer for Reviewer #1, Question 2.

3. Results

Tables:

The authors have included several studies where age groups are < 18 years while, they mention one of the inclusion criteria was age more than 18 years.

Also, for other studies included there were those aged 16-65 and 16-70 years. Please specify the age groups for inclusion since the study focus was on adults.

Author’s response : We appreciate for your comment. We agree with that the target population should be clarified in systematic review articles. Our review included studies using adult samples aged 18 or older. In table 1~4, the description “18≤” indicates the age of 18 or older. As a result of reconfirming the included studies we presented in the table 1~4, we could not find any studies involving individuals ranged over 16 years age or older. Please let us know if there is something we haven't checked. Thank you for the opportunity to reconfirm the included studies according to the reviewer’s point.

4. Discussion

The authors are advised to discuss on why the studies of 15 years are included. In other words, what was the earliest year of study inclusion? If you did not find studies before that year, what could be the reasons?

Author’s response : We appreciate for your thoughtful advice. Our publication searching period was prior to 22 July 2021, and we updated to July 2022 according to Reviewer #1’s comment. We tried not to set the initial search period in order to include as many studies as possible dealing with adult ADHD. As a result, the earliest study we included was Secnick et al, (2006). We think that this is because after the publication of follow-up study for children or adolescent ADHD like Biederman, mick & Faraone (2000) et al, the interest on adults with ADHD has increased after that period. We added our opinion in the discussion section.

The authors are also suggested to cite the articles used in the text. For instance, when the authors say that the range of ADHD prevalence in the general population was 1.1-2.9% in their study, similar to previously observed.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We cited the articles that we referenced (The prevalence of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A global systematic review and meta-analysis )in discussion section.

The authors cite social and relational difficulties in ADHD as possible reasons for increased frequency of anxiety disorders. Please clarify on this statement.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. As we reconfirmed the mentioned part, we consider that our statement is lacking of sufficient evidence. Therefore, we removed the sentence “From a developmental…relational difficulties induced by ADHD” and hope that the deletion clarifies the points we attempted to make.

I also suggest the authors to discuss on what could be the reasons for studies mostly available from high income countries such as Europe and North America.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We consider that this was influenced by the cultural/public health environmental difference which might influenced the diagnosis and prevalence of ADHD in adults like in adolescents (Skounti et al,2007). Because of the variety of clinical and pathological features of adult ADHD, the diagnosis of adult ADHD largely dependent on clinical presentation. And also ADHD prevalence may be culture dependent, as what is considering abnormal in one culture may be more acceptable in another, and culture may affect the report by informants or clinicians. This makes the prevalence of adult ADHD differs by countries (Song et al, 2021). In particular, in previous studies related to prevalence of adult ADHD (Fayyad et al, 2017), the prevalence was higher in high-income countries than in low-income countries, which may have caused differences in interest in adult ADHD. This difference of interest about adult ADHD might also influenced the interest in research on comorbidities. We have revised the text and cited references to be more in line with your comments at limitation section additionally. We hope that the revision clarifies the points we attempt to make. Revised limitation section is shown below :

Considering a previous epidemiologic study investigating cross-national ADHD prevalence in adults (15), the prevalence differed by country income, which was higher in high-income countries, so our findings might be limited. This difference in prevalence among countries affects the degree of interest in the disease, which might be the reason why the included studies were mainly conducted in Europe and North America.

Reference

Skounti M, Philalithis A, Galanakis E. Variations in prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder worldwide. Eur J Pediatr. 2007 Feb;166(2):117-23. doi: 10.1007/s00431-006-0299-5. Epub 2006 Oct 11. PMID: 17033803.

Song P, Zha M, Yang Q, Zhang Y, Li X, Rudan I. The prevalence of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of global health. 2021;11

Fayyad J, Sampson NA, Hwang I, Adamowski T, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Al-Hamzawi A, Andrade LH, Borges G, de Girolamo G, Florescu S, Gureje O. The descriptive epidemiology of DSM-IV adult ADHD in the world health organization world mental health surveys. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders. 2017 Mar;9(1):47-65.

Minor comments

The article type mentioned in the manuscript file is research article, while the manuscript submitted is systematic review. So, I suggest the authors to change the name of the article type.

In the title, the authors mention systematic literature review instead if just systematic review. Do the authors have specific reason for this?

There are several grammatical errors throughout the text. I suggest the authors do a thorough grammatical check and proof reading while reviewing the manuscript.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. As following PLOS ONE’s submission guideline for systematic review, we submitted our article as “Research Article” section. We specified our study as systematic literature review in title because it is a systematic review that summarize the results of previous literatures without performing meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis.

Reviewer #4

The introduction is adequate - but there are minor errors that should be corrected i.e. replace impulsiveness with impulsivity, add 'with' following presenting, replace high incident rates with 'high incidence rates' to correct these errors.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We revised the text that were not grammatically correct. We hope the revised text could clarify the meaning we attempt to make.

Methodology - adequately explained - but again, there are errors in the first sentence 'the methodology of the present review was followed by PRISMA' should be replaced by 'the methodology of the present review followed PRISMA protocol'. I would recommend here that the statistical analyses used should be explained further.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We revised the text that were not grammatically correct. We agree that the method of statistical analysis should be mentioned in systematic review study. However, we did not performed quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis in our study. For this reason, we did not mentioned specific statistical analysed used in our study. We hope this could be adequate answer for your opinion.

Results - I would recommend adding a section on psychotic illnesses and personality disorders as these are relevant and included in the results table.

Author’s response : We appreciate for reviewer’s suggestion. At first, in Table 4 and ‘Prevalence of personality disorders’ paragraph in Results section, we presented the difference of prevalence between ADHD and non-ADHD adults including antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. In case of psychotic disorder, there was only one included study reporting the difference of prevalence between ADHD and non-ADHD in adults. For this reason, we believe that there were no sufficient meaning for comparing the prevalence of psychotic disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD, so it was not presented in the manuscript. We hope that this could explain the reason for excepting psychotic disorder in our point of view.

Discussion - This section is adequate, but again has a few errors - replace 'variety' by 'variation', rewrite the sentence on 'the most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder is SUD, ranging from...' include 'its prevalence ranging from...'

The article would benefit from proofreading to correct grammatical and syntactical errors.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We revised the text that were not grammatically correct. We rechecked our manuscript and corrected few grammatical and syntactical errors. Thank you for the opportunity to correct the mistake according to the reviewer's point.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Soumitra Das

20 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-17093R1The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bahk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Soumitra Das

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments :

Please revise accordingly 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for the opportunity to re-review the 'The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review'. It is clear that the authors were very responsive to all the reviewers' comments, addressed the comments and edited the manuscript accordingly and adequately, or provided detailed justifications otherwise. It results in a massive improvement in the quality of the manuscript. Congratulations!

There are a few follow up concerns/comments for the authors to consider.

1. In my previous comment (Reviewer #1, 4.), the authors responded that

"We appreciate for your suggestion. We updated the searched articles after

22 July 2021. We conducted searches up to August 1, 2022 using the same inclusion &

exclusion criteria for each database. As a result, 2 more studies were included to our review.

We also updated the flow chart, tables and manuscript. Updated numbers and searching

strategy of articles are presented at Supplement 2.

It is great to see that the authors updated the search, which made the findings stay highly up to date. However, this information has not been accurately reflected in the revised manuscript:

As seen in the current revised Abstract: 'Thirty studies published before July 2021 were identified and classified according to diagnosis of other psychiatric disorder in those with ADHD.'

Methods: '...publications regarding the epidemiology and prevalence rate of comorbidities of adult ADHD published from 1 January 1990 to 22 July 2021.'

2. In the limitation section, the authors added the new text

'When our review was evaluated by AMSTAR-2 (85), which evaluates the quality of systematic review studies, our review was rated as low quality review.'

I appreciate that the authors provided a detailed response to address my comment (Reviewer #1, 5) regarding the limitation of not evaluating the risk of bias on each study; and provided a detailed explanation within the manuscript, '...Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias in each studies. In order to include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries, populations and comorbid psychiatric disorders, we skipped the risk of bias assessment....'

The authors further evaluated their review based on AMSTAR-2 and concluded that their current study as 'a low quality review'.

According to Shea et al., 2017, a low quality review means "the review has a critical flaw and may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest". At the moment, without a detailed elaboration on what AMSTAR-2 evaluates, what it actually means 'as a low quality review', what the 'critical flaw' is in the current review, and how it 'may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest'; it may confuse the readers and devalues the merit of the current review unnecessarily. As the authors have already adequately justified why the risk of bias assessment was not conducted, I suggest the authors to re-consider the necessity and value of including this additional information.

3. A thorough proofread and editing is required for the updated text to enhance readability:

eg.

i) In the method section, data collection,

'Microsoft Excel was used to develop a data extraction sheet, and the whole included full-text

articles were reviewed by two researchers (WSC, YSW) in duplicate who also

conducted the initial data search and study selection process.'

While the authors explained the process clearly in their response (Reviewer #1, 2.):

'...We wanted to mean that both two researchers reviewed all article which was selected by them in any order...' However, the expression in the manuscript still seems to be unclear, especially after putting the words 'in duplicate'. Suggest to reword.

Ii) Study selection section, 'a full-text review was performed to define eligibility of each studies.'; discussion section, ''...Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias in each studies....'

Should it be each study?

Iii) In discussion, 'The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, it’s prevalence ranging from between 2.3% and 41.2% in the general population and between 10.0% and 82.9% in the clinical population',

Should it be ranging from xx to xx?

iv) In conclusion section updated text, 'Which could help for differential diagnosis and providing earlier treatment to adult ADHD individual.'

It seems to be an dependable clause rather than a complete sentence.

Reviewer #3: Thank you again for the opportunity to go through the revised submission. The authors have attempted to respond to most queries. I appreciate that. However, they seem to have introduced many grammatical errors in doing so. Also, when I commented on risk of bias assessment, it is important to understand that risk of bias assessment does not only apply to randomized trials, instead there are other tools such as NIH tool for quality check in observation studies or GRADE for overall quality check. I however appreciate the authors effort in using the AMSTAR checklist for quality check.

Finally, I did not find authors’ response to the following comment though it appears that they have tried to keep these in limitations in response to comments from reviewer 1.

Other important points:

Systematic review protocols are required to be registered before you start the review process to avoid duplications and assist in transparency of the work. There are various options for registration such as PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry etc.

In the manuscript submitted, I do not see the registration number. Could the authors include the registration number and the registry where the protocol has been registered.

The authors have not described if they have used quality control for the studies included. In other words, risk of bias assessment is one of the most important steps in any systematic review and metanalysis. Also, who did the quality assessment of the studies included?

Overall, the review seems satisfactory to me. All the best.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Saraswati Dhungana

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comments Revision Plos One.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 4;17(11):e0277175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277175.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Sep 2022

Responses to the Reviewer’s comment

29 September, 2022

Dear reviewers and editorial staffs of PLOS ONE

We are sincerely grateful for your detailed review and consideration of our manuscript, “The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review”, control number PONE-D-22-17093. Through the comments of first revision process, we could improve the quality of our research. We have additionally revised the manuscript according to the Reviewer’s comments. We performed additional English proofreading, and revised the Reference section in the style required by PLOS ONE (Vancouver style). We acknowledge that the quality of our manuscript was much improved after revising with the scrutinizing efforts of the reviewers and editors.

Point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are provided in ‘Response to Reviewers’ and revised text in manuscript is highlighted and underlined in red at ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’. Point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are provided below.

Reviewer #1

1. In my previous comment (Reviewer #1, 4.), the authors responded that

"We appreciate for your suggestion. We updated the searched articles after 22 July 2021. We conducted searches up to August 1, 2022 using the same inclusion & exclusion criteria for each database. As a result, 2 more studies were included to our review. We also updated the flow chart, tables and manuscript. Updated numbers and searching strategy of articles are presented at Supplement 2.” It is great to see that the authors updated the search, which made the findings stay highly up to date. However, this information has not been accurately reflected in the revised manuscript: As seen in the current revised Abstract: 'Thirty studies published before July 2021 were identified and classified according to diagnosis of other psychiatric disorder in those with ADHD.' Methods: '...publications regarding the epidemiology and prevalence rate of comorbidities of adult ADHD published from 1 January 1990 to 22 July 2021.'

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have confirmed the error in our manuscript. We reflected the updated information and revised the Abstract, Method, Results, and Discussion section of our manuscript. Thank you for the opportunity to correct the mistake according to the reviewer's point. The revised text is shown below :

Abstract

…Thirty-two studies published before August 2022 were identified and classified according to diagnosis of other psychiatric disorder in those with ADHD.

Method

…We searched electronic libraries of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycNET, and Google Scholar for publications regarding the epidemiology and prevalence rate of comorbidities of adult ADHD published from 1 January 1990 to 1 August 2022.

Results

…Thus, 32 studies of comparing the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD adult subjects were selected for systematic review.

…Of the 32 studies comparing the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorder between subjects with and without adult ADHD, according to our classification criteria, 11 studies involved general populations, 18 studies included psychiatric populations, and three studies focused on incarcerated populations.

…The most used evaluation tool for adult ADHD was Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) (25, 26) , which was used in 12 studies. Five studies used the ASRS alone to evaluate ADHD in adults, and the rest of the studies used more than one tool to evaluate ADHD.

Discussion

…In our systematic review, we included 32 studies conducted over 16 years dealing with the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities between adults with and without ADHD.

2. In the limitation section, the authors added the new text

'When our review was evaluated by AMSTAR-2 (85), which evaluates the quality of systematic review studies, our review was rated as low quality review.'

I appreciate that the authors provided a detailed response to address my comment (Reviewer #1, 5) regarding the limitation of not evaluating the risk of bias on each study; and provided a detailed explanation within the manuscript, '...Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias in each studies. In order to include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries, populations and comorbid psychiatric disorders, we skipped the risk of bias assessment....' The authors further evaluated their review based on AMSTAR-2 and concluded that their current study as 'a low quality review'. According to Shea et al., 2017, a low quality review means "the review has a critical flaw and may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest". At the moment, without a detailed elaboration on what AMSTAR-2 evaluates, what it actually means 'as a low quality review', what the 'critical flaw' is in the current review, and how it 'may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest'; it may confuse the readers and devalues the merit of the current review unnecessarily. As the authors have already adequately justified why the risk of bias assessment was not conducted, I suggest the authors to re-consider the necessity and value of including this additional information.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. We agree with the reviewer’s opinion that current revised manuscript can confuse the readers. After discussion with other authors, we have decided to delete the sentence which could devalue the meaning of current study. This will clarify the meaning of our study. Thank you for the reviewer’s comment.

3. A thorough proofread and editing is required for the updated text to enhance readability: eg.

i) In the method section, data collection,

'Microsoft Excel was used to develop a data extraction sheet, and the whole included full-text

articles were reviewed by two researchers (WSC, YSW) in duplicate who also

conducted the initial data search and study selection process.'

While the authors explained the process clearly in their response (Reviewer #1, 2.):

'...We wanted to mean that both two researchers reviewed all article which was selected by them in any order...' However, the expression in the manuscript still seems to be unclear, especially after putting the words 'in duplicate'. Suggest to reword.

Ii) Study selection section, 'a full-text review was performed to define eligibility of each studies.'; discussion section, ''...Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias in each studies....'

Should it be each study?

Iii) In discussion, 'The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, it’s prevalence ranging from between 2.3% and 41.2% in the general population and between 10.0% and 82.9% in the clinical population',

Should it be ranging from xx to xx?

iv) In conclusion section updated text, 'Which could help for differential diagnosis and providing earlier treatment to adult ADHD individual.'

It seems to be an dependable clause rather than a complete sentence.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We confirmed the part mentioned by the reviewer and revised the sentence in manuscript. Also, we received additional English proofreading for the sentences updated to the manuscript. We have attached a confirmation of English proofreading. Thank you for the reviewer’s comment. The revised text is shown below :

Study selection

…The initial inclusion/exclusion review was based on titles and abstracts ; if the relevance of the article was unclear, a full-text review was performed to determine the eligibility of each study.

Data collection process

…Microsoft Excel was used to develop a data extraction spreadsheet, and all included full-text articles were reviewed by both researchers (WSC, YSW), who also conducted the initial data search and study selection process.

Discussion

…The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, it’s prevalence ranging from 2.3% and 41.2% in the general population and between 10.0% and 82.9% in the clinical population;

Conclusion

…This standardization will aid in differential diagnosis and allow provision of earlier treatment in adult ADHD.

Reviewer # 3

Reviewer #3: Thank you again for the opportunity to go through the revised submission. The authors have attempted to respond to most queries. I appreciate that. However, they seem to have introduced many grammatical errors in doing so. Also, when I commented on risk of bias assessment, it is important to understand that risk of bias assessment does not only apply to randomized trials, instead there are other tools such as NIH tool for quality check in observation studies or GRADE for overall quality check. I however appreciate the authors effort in using the AMSTAR checklist for quality check.

Finally, I did not find authors’ response to the following comment though it appears that they have tried to keep these in limitations in response to comments from reviewer 1.

Other important points:

Systematic review protocols are required to be registered before you start the review process to avoid duplications and assist in transparency of the work. There are various options for registration such as PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry etc.

In the manuscript submitted, I do not see the registration number. Could the authors include the registration number and the registry where the protocol has been registered.

The authors have not described if they have used quality control for the studies included. In other words, risk of bias assessment is one of the most important steps in any systematic review and meta-analysis. Also, who did the quality assessment of the studies included?

Overall, the review seems satisfactory to me. All the best.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments. We performed additional English proofreading for sentences added after first revision. We have attached a confirmation of English proofreading. Also, it was our mistake for not responding to reviewer’s comments about the registration and risk of bias assessment. We apologize for causing the reviewer any inconvenience. The following paragraph is answer for reviewer’s comment :

As answered to Reviewer #1 in the previous Response to Reviewers, we also agree that the registration process and risk of bias assessment are important for systematic review. However, due to our study was systematic literature review scoping for summarizing and providing overview about prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adult ADHD, we could not register our study in PROSPERO. This point is important limitation of this study, so we presented this points in limitation section. Also, in our review, we did not performed meta-analysis or statistical synthesis with extracted data, but we summarized and re-arranged the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in multiple studies comparing ADHD and non-ADHD adults to examine the trend of the difference of each comorbid psychiatric disorders. In order to include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries, populations and comorbid psychiatric disorders, we did not assess the quality or risk of bias of each included study. This is also why we presented our study as a systematic literature review. We presented this points in Limitation section of our manuscript. We hope that this could be the explanation for not assessing risk of bias of each study which could affect the limited results of our review.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2nd.docx

Decision Letter 2

Daimei Sasayama

19 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-17093R2The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bahk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it is almost acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE. However,  some minor corrections in English usage are necessary before acceptance. Please submit a revised version of the manuscript after proofreading the whole manuscript and making necessary corrections including the below mentioned points.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daimei Sasayama, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Two minor errors were pointed out by one of the reviewer. 

In addition, as shown below, I noticed some other sections that need to be corrected.

Study search and data sources section:

 "The methodology of the present review followed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)." should be corrected to "The methodology of the present review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)."

"...based on exclusion criteria of non-relevant articles (e.g., did not focus on adult patients or did not include psychiatric comorbidity data), non-English articles, full text not available, abstract-only papers, articles that were not peer-reviewed." should be "...based on exclusion criteria of non-relevant articles (e.g., did not focus on adult patients or did not include psychiatric comorbidity data), non-English articles, full text not available, abstract-only papers, and articles that were not peer-reviewed."

Results section:

"After the duplicates excluded, an additional 1121 articles were excluded by..." should be "After the duplicates were excluded, an additional 1121 articles were excluded by..."

"Thus, 32 studies of comparing the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD adult subjects were selected for systematic review." should be "Thus, 32 studies comparing the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD adult subjects were selected for systematic review."

Disussion section:

"This might because the interest in adult ADHD had increased based the results of

longitudinal follow-up studies on children and adolescents with ADHD." should be "This might be because the interest in adult ADHD had increased based on the results of longitudinal follow-up studies on children and adolescents with ADHD." 

"The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, it's prevalence ranging from..." should be "The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, its prevalence ranging from..." or "The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, the prevalence of which ranging from..."

"was estimated at 4.45% to 35.3% in the general population at 7.4% to 80.8% in the clinical population." should be "was estimated at 4.45% to 35.3% in the general population and 7.4% to 80.8% in the clinical population."

"...as identified by low hedonic responsibility" should be "...as identified by low hedonic responsivity"

"The prevalence rate in the ADHD group was estimated to rang e from 4.3% to 47.1%" should be "The prevalence rate in the ADHD group was estimated to range from 4.3% to 47.1%"

"Only one study of a clinical population dealing with psychiatric outpatients in the US (34), showed a higher prevalence of adjustment disorder in the non-ADHD group." should be "Only one study of a clinical population dealing with psychiatric outpatients in the US (34) showed a higher prevalence of adjustment disorder in the non-ADHD group."

Table 3:

Capitalize "C" in "childhood-identified ADHD with M.I.N.I (+)" 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for the opportunity to re-review the manuscript. The authors have been very responsive to all the comments and concerns. The language expression has been greatly improved. The information of the updated search has been shown accurately throughout the manuscript.

I recommend the current version of the manuscript is at the publication standard in principle, but there are two very minor issues of the revised text that would like to draw the authors' attention.

Under study selection: 'We included all types of except a systematic review or meta-analysis defined by title and method.' ?all types of "research"

Under limitation: 'study.-To include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries,'. There is a '-' in front of the 'To' in the clean version of copy. I believe that it may be picked up at the final publication stage anyway.

Other than these, it is a very high quality of work!

Reviewer #3: I have no further comments to the authors. All queries have been reviewed by the authors and I am satisfied with their final reviison.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Saraswati Dhungana

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 4;17(11):e0277175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277175.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


20 Oct 2022

Responses to the Reviewer’s comment

20 October, 2022

Dear reviewers and editorial staffs of PLOS ONE

We are sincerely grateful for your thorough consideration and scrutiny of our manuscript, “The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review”, control number PONE-D-22-17093R2. Our study is a systematic literature review of recent studies dealing with adults with ADHD which compares the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD populations. Dealing with the comprehensive prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adults with ADHD, our study will provide broad scope for understanding of comorbid psychiatric disorders in adults with ADHD to readers.

Through the careful comments made by the editor and reviewers, we were able to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the editor and reviewer’s suggestions. We conducted an additional proofreading, and corrected some errors in the manuscript including Tables. We hope that our revised manuscript will be considered and accepted for publication in the PLOS ONE in shortly. We acknowledge that the scientific and clinical quality of our manuscript was improved by the scrutinizing efforts of the reviewers and editors.

Point-by-point responses to the editor and reviewers’ comments are provided below.

For the editor’s additional comments

In addition, as shown below, I noticed some other sections that need to be corrected.

Study search and data sources section:

"The methodology of the present review followed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)." should be corrected to "The methodology of the present review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)."

"...based on exclusion criteria of non-relevant articles (e.g., did not focus on adult patients or did not include psychiatric comorbidity data), non-English articles, full text not available, abstract-only papers, articles that were not peer-reviewed." should be "...based on exclusion criteria of non-relevant articles (e.g., did not focus on adult patients or did not include psychiatric comorbidity data), non-English articles, full text not available, abstract-only papers, and articles that were not peer-reviewed."

Results section:

"After the duplicates excluded, an additional 1121 articles were excluded by..." should be "After the duplicates were excluded, an additional 1121 articles were excluded by..."

"Thus, 32 studies of comparing the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD adult subjects were selected for systematic review." should be "Thus, 32 studies comparing the prevalence rates of comorbid psychiatric disorders between ADHD and non-ADHD adult subjects were selected for systematic review."

Discussion section:

"This might because the interest in adult ADHD had increased based the results of

longitudinal follow-up studies on children and adolescents with ADHD." should be "This might be because the interest in adult ADHD had increased based on the results of longitudinal follow-up studies on children and adolescents with ADHD."

"The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, it's prevalence ranging from..." should be "The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, its prevalence ranging from..." or "The most frequent comorbid psychiatric disorder in the ADHD group was SUD, the prevalence of which ranging from..."

"was estimated at 4.45% to 35.3% in the general population at 7.4% to 80.8% in the clinical population." should be "was estimated at 4.45% to 35.3% in the general population and 7.4% to 80.8% in the clinical population."

"...as identified by low hedonic responsibility" should be "...as identified by low hedonic responsivity"

"The prevalence rate in the ADHD group was estimated to rang e from 4.3% to 47.1%" should be "The prevalence rate in the ADHD group was estimated to range from 4.3% to 47.1%"

"Only one study of a clinical population dealing with psychiatric outpatients in the US (34), showed a higher prevalence of adjustment disorder in the non-ADHD group." should be "Only one study of a clinical population dealing with psychiatric outpatients in the US (34) showed a higher prevalence of adjustment disorder in the non-ADHD group."

Table 3:

Capitalize "C" in "childhood-identified ADHD with M.I.N.I (+)"

Author’s response : We appreciate the editor’s thoughtful comments. We revised the mentioned text in our manuscript. And also, we fixed some grammatical errors in the table. Thank you for the opportunity to reconfirm the manuscript and the editor’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer #1

1. Thanks for the opportunity to re-review the manuscript. The authors have been very responsive to all the comments and concerns. The language expression has been greatly improved. The information of the updated search has been shown accurately throughout the manuscript.

I recommend the current version of the manuscript is at the publication standard in principle, but there are two very minor issues of the revised text that would like to draw the authors' attention.

Under study selection: 'We included all types of except a systematic review or meta-analysis defined by title and method.' ?all types of "research"

Under limitation: 'study.-To include as many studies as possible to reflect broad and various studies of different countries,'. There is a '-' in front of the 'To' in the clean version of copy. I believe that it may be picked up at the final publication stage anyway.

Other than these, it is a very high quality of work!

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments. We revised the mentioned text in our manuscript. Thank you for the reviewer's compliment and efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer # 3

I have no further comments to the authors. All queries have been reviewed by the authors and I am satisfied with their final revision.

Author’s response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments. Thank you for your efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_3rd.docx

Decision Letter 3

Daimei Sasayama

24 Oct 2022

The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review

PONE-D-22-17093R3

Dear Dr. Bahk,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daimei Sasayama, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Daimei Sasayama

28 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-17093R3

The Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adult ADHD Compared With Non-ADHD Populations : A Systematic Literature Review

Dear Dr. Bahk:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daimei Sasayama

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Text. Article search strategy.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-17093.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers comments Revision Plos One.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2nd.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_3rd.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES