Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses: Safety and Efficacy of Complementary and Alternative Treatments for Pediatric Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Author:

Zulauf-McCurdy Courtney A.1ORCID,LaCount Patrick A.1ORCID,Shelton Christopher R.2,Morrow Anne S.3,Zhao Xin A.4,Russell Douglas1,Sibley Margaret H.1,Arnold L. Eugene5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine;

2. Pennsylvania State University, The Behrend College;

3. South Florida Integrative Medicine;

4. Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine;

5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Nisonger Center, Ohio State University College of Medicine.

Abstract

Abstract Objective: Complementary and alternative treatments (CATs) for ADHD have proliferated over the past decade; however, their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. We completed a systematic review and meta-analyses across CAT domains. Methods: Systematic search and data extraction identified randomized controlled trials for pediatric ADHD (ages 3–19 years) that included probably blind ADHD symptom outcome measures. We evaluated basic (RCT of a CAT compared with sham/placebo, attention/active control, treatment as usual, and waitlist control), complementary (RCTs comparing an evidence-based treatment with a CAT and the same evidence-based treatment), and alternative (evidence-based treatment to CAT) efficacy. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted when at least 3 blinded studies were identified for a specific CAT domain. Results: Eighty-seven of 2253 nonduplicate screened manuscripts met inclusion criteria. No study reported significantly greater adverse effects for CATs than controls; naturopathy reported fewer adverse effects than evidence-based treatments but did not demonstrate basic efficacy. In the systematic review of basic efficacy, evidence of effectiveness was mixed but replicated previous evidence for the possible efficacy of cognitive training, neurofeedback, and essential fatty acid supplementation for certain patients. With respect to alternative and complementary efficacy, no CAT outperformed or enhanced evidence-based treatments (stimulant medications and behavioral therapy) when replication was required. Individual meta-analyses indicated that cognitive training was the only CAT that demonstrated overall basic efficacy (SMD = 0.216; p = 0.032). Conclusion: Clinicians may cautiously recommend (but monitor) cognitive training when evidence-based treatments are not feasible or effective for a patient. Additional studies are needed to further understand the potential of CAT domains.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3