Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32853703›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry2021

Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder With 13-Month Follow-up.

Neurofeedback Collaborative Group

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02251743 (Double-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02251743 nacompletednot on this map

Double-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD

TypeinterventionalSponsorOhio State UniversityRan2014 to 2020Enrolled144ConditionsAttention-Deficit/Hyperactivity DisorderArmsNeurofeedback treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Brain-computer interface: an update for the clinicians.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Neurofeedback Collaborative Group

Funding

The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (UL1)UL1TR000090 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2012 to 2013
$7.9M
Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of EEG Neurofeedback for ADHDR01MH100144 · NIMH · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ARNOLD, L EUGENE · 2014 to 2018
$3.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000090NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100144
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether theta/beta-ratio (TBR) electroencephalographic biofeedback (neurofeedback [NF]) has a specific effect on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) beyond nonspecific benefit.

methodIn a 2-site double-blind randomized clinical trial, 144 children aged 7 to 10 years with rigorously diagnosed moderate/severe ADHD and theta/beta-ratio (TBR) ≥4.5 were randomized 3:2 to deliberate TBR downtraining versus a control of equal duration, intensity, and appearance. Two early dropouts left 142 children for modified intent-to-treat analysis. The control used prerecorded electroencephalograms with the participant's artifacts superimposed. Treatment was programmed via Internet by an off-site statistician-guided co-investigator. Fidelity was 98.7% by trainers/therapists and 93.2% by NF expert monitor. The primary outcome was parent- and teacher-rated inattention; analysis was mixed-effects regression. Because the expense and effort of NF can be justified only by enduring benefit, follow-ups were integrated.

resultsBlinding was excellent. Although both groups showed significant improvement (p < .001, d = 1.5) in parent/teacher-rated inattention from baseline to treatment end and 13-month follow-up, NF was not significantly superior to the control condition at either time point on this primary outcome (d = 0.01, p = .965 at treatment end; d = 0.23, p = .412 at 13-month follow-up). Responders (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] = 1-2) were 61% of NF and 54% of controls (p = .36). Adverse events were distributed proportionally between treatments. The 13-month follow-up found nonsignificant improvement from treatment end for NF (d = 0.1), with mild deterioration for controls (d = -0.07). NF required significantly less medication at follow-up (p = .012).

conclusionThis study does not support a specific effect of deliberate TBR NF at either treatment end or 13-month follow-up. Participants will be reassessed at 25-month follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Double-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT02251743.

Indexed as

Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityNeurofeedbackChildDouble-Blind MethodElectroencephalographyFollow-Up StudiesHumansTreatment OutcomeADHDattention-deficitclinical trialsdouble-blindneurofeedback

Identifiers

PMID32853703
PMCPMC7904968
OpenAlexW3080886168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.