<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and Non‐Pharmacological Treatments for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents: An Overview of Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic behavioural disorder that affects 5–8% of children. It is characterized by age‐inappropriate levels of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity that cause functional impairment in multiple settings. The most common treatment of ADHD involves prescription of stimulant medications, which often cause undesirable side effects and pose unknown long‐term health risks. Therefore, alternative treatment options for ADHD are becoming increasingly popular and need to be further investigated. Objectives This overview of reviews aims to synthesize evidence from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacologic treatments to improve symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents. Methods Issue 12, 2010 of the CDSR was searched using the terms “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”, “hyperkinetic disorder” and “ADHD” restricted to the title, abstract or keywords, and all systematic reviews examining non‐pharmacologic treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents were identified. Data were extracted, complied into tables and synthesized using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Results Three systematic reviews (containing ten trials and 594 participants) were identified for inclusion in this overview. Children assigned to Hatha yoga versus a non‐specific physical activity control condition showed significantly less symptoms of inattention when measured using both parent ratings (MD: − 0.73; 95% CI: − 1.25, − 0.21) and child‐completed tests (MD: − 4.01; 95% CI: − 6.23, − 1.79). There was no significant benefit of homeopathy compared to homeopathy placebo in decreasing symptoms of ADHD. There was also no significant difference between family therapy and standard treatment for parent and teacher ratings of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity; however, when overall symptoms were judged by a blinded third party observer in the classroom setting, standard treatment was significantly more effective (MD: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.17). There was no significant difference between meditation therapy compared to both drug therapy and standard treatment without drugs for decreasing symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, distractibility or overall symptoms. Authors' Conclusions The three Cochrane reviews suffered from a lack of high‐quality, adequately powered randomized controlled trials using standardized tools to measure clinically important outcomes over adequate periods of time. Therefore, the trials included in this overview are not sufficient to provide evidence of no positive benefit of treatment, nor are they sufficient to recommend the use Hatha yoga, family therapy, meditation therapy or homeopathy for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".