Explore › Outcome › Conduct Disorder
Outcome

Conduct Disorder

Also known as: CONDUCT DIS Conduct Disorder Conduct Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder diagnosis rates Conduct Disorders Conduct disorder Conduct disorder (disorder) Disturbance of conduct NOS Disturbance of conduct NOS (disorder) Unspecified disturbance of conduct Unspecified disturbance of conduct (disorder) [X]Conduct disorder, unspecified [X]Conduct disorders +3 more
3 findings 1 paper 4 related entities View in graph →

Related entities

interventions
Chemotherapy1
conditions
AIEOP acute lymphoblastic leukemia protocol1
populations
Children1
studys
PMC59865881

Findings (27)

None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
improvement

Long-term survivors of childhood ALL had significantly LOWER rates of Conduct Disorder (0.6% vs 10.9%) and Major Depressive Disorder (1.3% vs 15.4%) compared to the general population, suggesting prot

Effect: improvement; Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% expected; CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95% CI 0.2-4.6% (MDD)

Size: Conduct Disorder: 0.6% vs 10.9% expected; MDD: 1.3% vs 15.4% CI: 95% CI 0.0-3.5% (Conduct Disorder); 95%
PMC5986588
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →

Papers (1)