XXXX are not characteristic of schoolchildren with newly diagnosed @entity3762 .

@entity1 @entity71 @entity3762 @entity302
PURPOSE: To compare problems of attention in schoolchildren with newly diagnosed @entity3762 with those in healthy classmates. METHODS: A computerized battery of tasks comprised Reaction Time (RT) measurement, Trail making (Color Trails 1 and 2), Manual Tapping and Steadiness, and a newly developed task of sustained attention (Balloon Piercing). SUBJECTS: Fifty-one @entity1 with @entity302 (age 7-16 years) and 48 gender- and age-matched classmates were assessed thrice: within 48 h after diagnosis [before start of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)], and 3 and 12 months later. Significantly more @entity1 with @entity302 (51%) than control @entity1 (27%) had required special educational assistance at school. RESULTS: @entity1 with @entity302 could not be distinguished from controls in execution times or motor speed. However, errors were more frequent among @entity1 in a "go-no-go" RT task, and errors of omission in a task requiring sustained attention. Within the group of @entity1 with @entity302 , those with prior school or behavior difficulties and those whose parents reacted maladaptively to the onset and diagnosis of @entity302 performed worse than those without these adversities, in the sense that their RT increased inordinately with increasing task difficulty. Epilepsy-related variables did not explain any variance. Transient inordinately poor performances were found in 69% of @entity1 and 40% of controls. CONCLUSIONS: @entity1 with newly diagnosed " @entity302 only" do not have persistent @entity71 . AED treatment has no detrimental effect on attention. Prior school and behavior difficulties and a maladaptive reaction to the onset of @entity302 rather than @entity302 variables are related to decreased attentional efficiency.
