Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27665293›Full record

Trial reportEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2017

An RCT into the effects of neurofeedback on neurocognitive functioning compared to stimulant medication and physical activity in children with ADHD.

Katleen Geladé, Marleen Bink, Tieme W P Janssen, Rosa van Mourik, Athanasios Maras, Jaap Oosterlaan

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Katleen GeladéYulius Academy, Yulius Mental Health Organization, Dennenhout 1, 2994 GC, Barendrecht, The Netherlands. k.gelade@yulius.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4338-9189
Marleen BinkDepartment of Clinical Neuropsychology, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorstraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tieme W P JanssenDepartment of Clinical Neuropsychology, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorstraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rosa van MourikDepartment of Clinical Neuropsychology, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorstraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Athanasios MarasYulius Academy, Yulius Mental Health Organization, Dennenhout 1, 2994 GC, Barendrecht, The Netherlands.
Jaap OosterlaanDepartment of Clinical Neuropsychology, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorstraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLYulius · NLRoyal Dutch Kentalis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurofeedback (NFB) is a potential alternative treatment for children with ADHD that aims to optimize brain activity. Whereas most studies into NFB have investigated behavioral effects, less attention has been paid to the effects on neurocognitive functioning. The present randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared neurocognitive effects of NFB to (1) optimally titrated methylphenidate (MPH) and (2) a semi-active control intervention, physical activity (PA), to control for non-specific effects. Using a multicentre three-way parallel group RCT design, children with ADHD, aged 7-13, were randomly allocated to NFB (n = 39), MPH (n = 36) or PA (n = 37) over a period of 10-12 weeks. NFB comprised theta/beta training at CZ. The PA intervention was matched in frequency and duration to NFB. MPH was titrated using a double-blind placebo controlled procedure to determine the optimal dose. Neurocognitive functioning was assessed using parameters derived from the auditory oddball-, stop-signal- and visual spatial working memory task. Data collection took place between September 2010 and March 2014. Intention-to-treat analyses showed improved attention for MPH compared to NFB and PA, as reflected by decreased response speed during the oddball task [η

Indexed as

AdolescentAttentionAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityCentral Nervous System StimulantsChildDouble-Blind MethodExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMental RecallMethylphenidateNeurocognitive DisordersNeurofeedbackNeuropsychological TestsCentral Nervous System StimulantsMethylphenidateADHDMedicationNeurocognitionNeurofeedbackPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID27665293
PMCPMC5364239
OpenAlexW2523316632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.