No abstract

Extant literature suggests that autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are risk factors for internet addiction (IA). The present cross-sectional study explored the prevalence of IA among 132 adolescents with ASD and/or ADHD in a Japanese psychiatric clinic using Young's Internet Addiction Test. The prevalence of IA among adolescents with ASD alone, with ADHD alone and with comorbid ASD and ADHD were 10.8, 12.5, and 20.0%, respectively. Our results emphasize the clinical importance of screening and intervention for IA when mental health professionals see adolescents with ASD and/or ADHD in psychiatric services.

No abstract

Methods: Please anticipate the explanation of what is a "quadruple-blind RCT". I don't think all general readers have a clear idea of this design RESPONSE:We appreciate your suggestions. We added a sentence to convey what "quadruple-blinding" is and why it is important as follows. Randomisation and blindingReal-time simple randomisation by a server-side program was performed after informed consent and the eligibility check. Researchers were concealed since no random allocation sequence was prepared.We conducted a quadruple-blind trial. Generally, there are four parties which should be blinded to allocation to avoid biases as much as possible: participants; carers and people delivering the interventions; outcome assessors; and statisticians (Higgins et.al, 2011). With a careful description in the informed consent document, participants, who were also outcome assessors, were unaware whether they were allocated to the intervention of interest or not. Since researchers could potentially provide participants with additional interventions, they were also blinded owing to the automated procedure of the trial requiring minimal human involvement. Furthermore, the statistical analyst (TAF) was also blinded to the allocation until results of the analyses for primary and secondary outcomes were fixed. TAF was provided only with items collected from participants in both groups. How do the authors addressed the possibility of "fake patients" motivated by Amazon gift cardsto enjoy the study? Despite both groups received the same rewards, it could be expected that some proportion of subjects enrolled could have partecipate in the study without proper inclusion criteria. RESPONSE:Thank you for pointing out the possibility of "fake" participants. The risk cannot be avoided completely so that we decided to describe the risk as an additional limitation as follows.