Interventions for Preschool Children at High Risk for ADHD: A Comparative Effectiveness Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a comparative effectiveness review of interventions for preschoolers at risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, PsycInfo, and Education Resources Information Center were searched from 1980 to November 24, 2011. Selected studies were comparative, and enrolled children <6 years with clinically significant disruptive behavior, including ADHD. The interventions evaluated were parent behavior training (PBT), combined home and school/day care interventions, and methylphenidate use. Data were extracted by using customized software. Two independent raters evaluated studies as good, fair, or poor by using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies Risk of Bias. Overall strength of evidence (SOE) was rated for each intervention's effectiveness, accounting for study design, systematic error, consistency of results, directness of evidence, and certainty regarding outcome. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were examined. Only studies examining PBT interventions could be pooled statistically using meta-analysis. Eight "good" studies examined PBT, total n = 424; SOE was high for improved child behavior, standardized mean difference = -0.68 (95% confidence interval: -0.88 to -0.47), with minimal heterogeneity among studies. Only 1 good study evaluated methylphenidate, total n = 114; therefore, SOE for methylphenidate was low. Combined home and school/day care interventions showed inconsistent results. The literature reported adverse effects for methylphenidate but not for PBT. CONCLUSIONS: With more studies consistently documenting effectiveness, PBT interventions have greater evidence of effectiveness than methylphenidate for treatment of preschoolers at risk for ADHD.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".