Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31221690›Full record

SynthesisEvidence-based mental health2019

Effects of neurofeedback versus methylphenidate for the treatment of ADHD: systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials.

Lixia Yan, Siyuan Wang, Yang Yuan, Junhua Zhang

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. A Case Study in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Innovative Neurofeedback-Based Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. ADHD: Reviewing the Causes and Evaluating Solutions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lixia Yan *School of Education, Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Big Data of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Yancheng Teachers University, Yancheng, China.
Siyuan Wang *School of Chinese Language and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China.
Yang YuanYancheng Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Yancheng, China.
Junhua ZhangYancheng Teachers University, Yancheng, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9937-6301
Nanjing Normal University · CNSoochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeurofeedbackOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityCentral Nervous System StimulantsHumansMethylphenidateCentral Nervous System StimulantsMethylphenidateimpulse control disorders

Identifiers

PMID31221690
PMCPMC10270464
OpenAlexW2951416911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.