SynthesisEvidence-based mental health2019
Effects of neurofeedback versus methylphenidate for the treatment of ADHD: systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials.
Synthesis in Evidence-based mental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurofeedback for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Additive effects of EEG neurofeedback on medications for ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- EEG-neurofeedback and executive function enhancement in healthy adults: A systematic review.Psychophysiology · 2021Pooled it
- Integrated use of biofeedback and neurofeedback techniques in treating pathological conditions and improving performance: a narrative review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023Review
- Sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback training relieves anxiety in healthy people.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2022Article
- A Case Study in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Innovative Neurofeedback-Based Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Review
- Pharmacotherapy for Preschool Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Current Status and Future Directions.CNS drugs · 2021Review
- ADHD: Reviewing the Causes and Evaluating Solutions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Does cognitive-behavioral therapy reduce internet addiction? Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe comparative efficacy and tolerability of methylphenidate (MPH) and neurofeedback (NF) in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains uncertain. This study aimed to fill this gap by means of a systematic review/meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, OVID, ERIC, Web of Science, ClinialTrials.gov and a set of Chinese databases were searched until 22 August 2018. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were pooled using comprehensive meta-analysis software.
results18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included (778 individuals with ADHD in the NF arm and 757 in the MPH group, respectively; 13 studies in Chinese, five in English). At the study first endpoint, MPH was significantly more efficacious than NF on ADHD core symptoms (ADHD symptoms combined: SMD=-0.578, 95% CI (-1.063 to -0.092)) and on two neuropsychological parameters (inattention:-0.959 (-1.711 to -0.208); inhibition:-0.469 (-0.872 to -0.066)). Dropouts were significantly lower in NF versus MPH (OR=0.412, 0.186 to 0.913). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, with two important exceptions: removing Chinese studies and non-funded studies, no differences emerged between MPH and NF, although the number of studies was small. At the study follow-up, MPH was superior to NF in some outcomes, but results were inconsistent across raters.
conclusionsDue to the risk of bias of included studies, the results of the sensitivity analysis excluding Chinese and non-funded studies, and the mixed findings on at the follow-up endpoint, further high quality studies are needed to assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of NF and MPH in individuals with ADHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090256.
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.