Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30833909›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2019

Clinical and Experimental Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Neurofeedback in ADHD: A Meta-Analysis.

Aurore Bussalb, Marco Congedo, Quentin Barthélemy, David Ojeda, Eric Acquaviva, Richard Delorme, Louis Mayaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. ADHD: Reviewing the Causes and Evaluating Solutions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

7 authors.

Aurore BussalbMensia Technologies SA, Paris, France.
Marco CongedoGIPSA-Lab, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble-INP, Grenoble, France.
Quentin BarthélemyMensia Technologies SA, Paris, France.
David OjedaMensia Technologies SA, Paris, France.
Eric AcquavivaChild and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, Robert Debré Hospital, Paris, France.
Richard DelormeChild and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, Robert Debré Hospital, Paris, France.
Louis MayaudMensia Technologies SA, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analyses have been extensively used to evaluate the efficacy of neurofeedback (NFB) treatment for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. However, each meta-analysis published in the past decade has contradicted the methods and results from the previous one, thus making it difficult to determine a consensus of opinion on the effectiveness of NFB. This works brings continuity to the field by extending and discussing the last and much controversial meta-analysis by Cortese et al. (1). The extension comprises an update of that work including the latest control trials, which have since been published and, most importantly, offers a novel methodology. Specifically, NFB literature is characterized by a high technical and methodological heterogeneity, which partly explains the current lack of consensus on the efficacy of NFB. This work takes advantage of this by performing a Systematic Analysis of Biases (SAOB) in studies included in the previous meta-analysis. Our extended meta-analysis (k = 16 studies) confirmed the previously obtained results of effect sizes in favor of NFB efficacy as being significant when clinical scales of ADHD are rated by parents (non-blind,

Indexed as

ADHDanalysis of biasEEGmeta-analysisneurofeedback

Identifiers

PMID30833909
PMCPMC6388544

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.