ArticleEvidence-based mental health2016
Evidence on methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ADHD is in fact of 'very low quality'.
Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Does Methylphenidate Work in Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder?Pediatric reports · 2021Article
- The Cochrane Collaboration withdraws a review on methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Evidence-based medicine · 2017Article
- Randomised or not?Evidence-based mental health · 2017Article
- Methylphenidate for ADHD in children and adolescents: throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Evidence-based mental health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Banaschewski and colleagues from the European Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) guideline group make a number of critical comments regarding our systematic review on methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. In this article, we present our views, showing that our trial selection was not flawed and was undertaken with scientific justification. Similarly, our data collection and interpretation was systematic and correct. We have followed a sound methodology for assessing risk of bias and our conclusions are not misleading. We acknowledge that different researchers might make risk of bias judgments at higher or lower thresholds, but we have been consistent and transparent in applying our pre-defined and per reviewed protocol. Although we made minor errors, we demonstrate that the effects are negligible and not affecting our conclusions. We are happy to correct such errors and to engage in debate on methodological and ethical issues. In terms of clinical implications, we are advocating that clinicians, patients and their relatives should weight carefully risks and benefits of methylphenidate. Clinical experience seems to suggest that there are people who benefit from this medication. Our systematic review does, however, raise questions regarding the overall quality of the methylphenidate trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.