Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychological, and neurostimulatory interventions for ADHD in adults: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear. We aimed to address these important knowledge gaps.
METHODS
In this systematic review and component network meta-analysis (NMA), we searched multiple databases for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD in adults from database inception to Sept 6, 2023. We included aggregate data from RCTs comparing interventions against controls or any other eligible active intervention for the treatment of symptoms in adults (ages ≥18 years) with a formal diagnosis of ADHD. Pharmacological therapies were included only if their maximum planned doses were considered eligible according to international guidelines. We included RCTs of at least 1-week duration for medications, of at least four sessions for psychological therapies, and of any length deemed appropriate for neurostimulation. For RCTs of medications, cognitive training, or neurostimulation alone, we included only double-blind RCTs. At least two authors independently screened the identified records and extracted data from eligible RCTs. Our primary outcomes were efficacy (change in ADHD core symptom severity on self-rated and clinician-rated scales at timepoints closest to 12 weeks) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). We estimated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using random effects pairwise…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,875 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.