At the class level , behavioural therapy ( alone or in combination with stimulants ) , stimulants , and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo .
Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants .
Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy , cognitive training and non-stimulants .
Behavioural therapy , stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability .
Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated .
Among medications , methylpheni date , amphetamine , atomoxetine , guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo .
Methylpheni date and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine .
Methylpheni date and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine .
Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms ( anorexia , weight loss and insomnia ) , but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed .
There is lack of evidence for cognitive training , neurofeedback , antidepressants , antipsychotics , dietary therapy , fatty acids , and other complementary and alternative medicine .
Clinical differences may exist between the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment used for the management of ADHD .
BACKGROUND Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood .
A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD .
We aim ed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological , psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents .
Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement
Reporting harms may cause more trouble and discredit than the fame and glory associated with successful reporting of benefits ( 1 ) . The CONSORT ( Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ) statement , a checklist ( Table 1 ) flow diagram first published in 1996 and revised 5 years later ( 2 , 3 ) , is an effort to st and ardize , and thereby improve , published reports of r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) . One of the additions to the 2001 revision was an item about reporting adverse events . This single item did not do full justice to the importance of harms-related issues . The CONSORT Group met in September 2001 to discuss how to correct this deficiency . We aim ed to provide evidence -based guidance on the reporting of harms in RCTs . First , we search ed MEDLINE , EMBASE , Web of Science , and the Cochrane Library using a wide array of terms related to harms and identified pertinent evidence . We also communicated with experts and review ed bibliographies of identified articles to find additional studies . At a meeting in Montebello , Quebec , Canada , in May 2003 , CONSORT Group members , including several journal editors and additional experts in related fields , held a structured discussion of recommendations about reporting of harms-related issues in RCTs . The discussion s led to a written document that we circulated among the team members for comment . The present manuscript describes our recommendations on the appropriate reporting of harms in RCTs . Table 1 . Original CONSORT Checklist The terminology of harms-related issues in RCTs is confusing and often misleading or misused ( see Glossary ) ( 4 , 5 ) . Safety is a reassuring term that may obscure the real and potentially major harms that drugs and other interventions may cause . We encourage authors to use the term harms instead of safety . In addition to misused terminology , reporting of harms in RCTs has received less attention than reporting of efficacy and effectiveness and is often inadequate ( 6 - 14 ) . In short , both scientific evidence and ethical necessity call for action to improve the quality of reporting of harms in RCTs ( 15 , 16 ) . Here , we present a set of recommendations and accompanying explanations for the proper reporting of harms in RCTs . These recommendations should complement the existing CONSORT statement ( Table 2 ) . Examples are presented on the Annals and CONSORT ( www.consort-statement.org ) Web sites . Table 2 . Checklist of Items To Include When Reporting Harms in R and omized , Controlled Trials Recommendations Title and Abstract Recommendation 1 . If the study collected data on harms and benefits , the title or abstract should so state . The title should mention harms if the study of harms was a key trial objective . Many phase I and phase II trials , some phase II/III trials , and most phase IV trials ( 17 , 18 ) target harms as primary outcomes . Yet , the title and abstract seldom contain the word harm . Among 375143 entries in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( Cochrane Library , issue 3 , 2003 ) , search ing titles with the search terms harm or harms yielded 337 references ( compared with 55374 for efficacy and 23415 for safety ) . Of the 337 , excluding several irrelevant articles on self-harm or harm reduction , only 3 trial reports and 2 abstract s contained the word harm in their titles . Authors should present information on harms in the abstract . If no important harms occurred , authors should so state . Explicit reference to the reporting of adverse events in the title or abstract is also important for appropriate data base indexing and information retrieval ( 19 ) . Introduction Background Recommendation 2 . If the trial addresses both harms and benefits , the introduction should so state . The introduction states the scientific background and rationale of an RCT . This requires a balanced presentation whereby the possible benefits of the intervention under investigation are outlined along with the possible harms associated with the treatment . R and omized , controlled trials that focus primarily on harms should clearly state this interest when describing the study objectives in the Introduction and in defining these objectives in the Methods . Methods Outcomes Recommendation 3 . List addressed adverse events with definitions for each ( with attention , when relevant , to grading , expected vs. unexpected events , reference to st and ardized and vali date d definitions , and description of new definitions ) . The Methods section should succinctly define the recorded adverse events ( clinical and laboratory ) . Authors should clarify whether the reported adverse events encompass all the recorded adverse events or a selected sample . They should explain how , why , and who selected adverse events for reporting . In trials that do not mention harms-related data , the Methods section should briefly explain the reason for the omission ( for example , the design did not include the collection of any information on harms ) . Authors should also be explicit about separately reporting anticipated and unexpected adverse events . Expectation may influence the incidence of reported or ascertained adverse events . Making participants aware in the consent form of the possibility of a specific adverse event ( priming ) may increase the reporting rate of the event ( 20 ) . Another example of priming is the finding that the rates of withdrawals due to adverse events and the rates of specific adverse events were significantly higher in trials of aspirin , diclofenac , or indomethacin with comparator drugs compared with placebo-controlled trials ( 21 ) . Presumably , participants were more eager to come forth and report an adverse event or to withdraw from treatment when they knew they could not be receiving inactive placebo . Authors should report whether they used st and ardized and vali date d measurement instruments for adverse events . Several medical fields have developed st and ardized scales ( 22 - 32 ) . Use of nonvali date d scales is common . The source document for well-established definitions and scales should be referenced . New definitions for adverse events should be explicit and clear . Authors should describe how they developed and vali date d new scales . For interventions that target healthy individuals ( for example , many preventive interventions ) , any harm , however minor , may be important to capture and report because the balance of harms and benefits may easily lean toward harms in a low-risk population . For other population s and for interventions that improve major outcomes ( for example , survival ) , severe and life-threatening adverse events may be the only ones that are important in the balance of benefits and harms . Recommendation 4 . Clarify how harms-related information was collected ( mode of data collection , timing , attribution methods , intensity of ascertainment , and harms-related monitoring and stopping rules , if pertinent ) . It is important to describe the question naires , interviews , and tests used to collect information on harms , as well as their timing during follow-up . Passive surveillance of harms leads to fewer recorded adverse events than active surveillance ( 4 ) . Open-ended questions may yield different information , both quantitatively and qualitatively , than structured question naires ( 33 ) . Studies of nonsteroidal , anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs ) exemplify how data collection methods can affect the detection and reporting of harms . When selective NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events became available , trials reported more than 10 times as many ulcers when comparing these drugs with older NSAIDs as when older NSAIDs were compared with placebo . In the newer trials , more ulcers were detected because participants had regular endoscopy , and the case definition of ulcers was more sensitive ( 34 ) . Authors should specify the time frame of surveillance for adverse events . Some investigators stop recording adverse events at the end of the intervention period or a certain number of days afterward ( for example , 30 days after discontinuation of drug therapy ) and miss events with long latency ( 35 ) . Surgical trials often capture only the adverse events that occur intraoperatively . Several important surgical complications are likely to occur later . Finally , in crossover trials , delayed events might occur while the patient is taking a subsequent assigned treatment . Attribution is the process of deciding whether an adverse event is related to the intervention . Whenever authors filter events through an attribution process , they should state who makes the attribution ( investigators , participants , sponsors , or combinations ) , whether the process is blinded to assigned treatment , and what definitions of adverse events they use ( 4 ) . Discontinuations and withdrawals due to adverse events are especially important because they reflect the ultimate decision of the participant and /or physician to discontinue treatment . Although treatment may occasionally be discontinued for mild or moderate adverse events , attributing discontinuation to a specific reason ( to toxicity , lack of efficacy , other reasons , or combinations of reasons ) may be difficult . For example , in psychopharmacology , dropouts may reflect treatment ineffectiveness as much as toxicity-related intolerance ( 36 ) . Trial reports should specify who gave the reasons for discontinuation ( participants or physicians ) and whether attribution was blinded to the assigned treatment . For example , even in blinded trials , participants and their clinicians are often unblinded before they decide whether to discontinue the intervention . It is important to report participants who are nonadherent or lost to follow-up because their actions may reflect their inability to tolerate the intervention . Moreover , authors should specify how they h and led withdrawals in the analyses of the data . R and omized , controlled trials should report any plan for monitoring for harms and rules for stopping the trial because of harms ( 37 ) . They should clarify whether stopping guidelines examine benefits and harms
At the class level , behavioural therapy ( alone or in combination with stimulants ) , stimulants , and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo .
Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants .
Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy , cognitive training and non-stimulants .
Behavioural therapy , stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability .
Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated .
Among medications , methylpheni date , amphetamine , atomoxetine , guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo .
Methylpheni date and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine .
Methylpheni date and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine .
Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms ( anorexia , weight loss and insomnia ) , but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed .
There is lack of evidence for cognitive training , neurofeedback , antidepressants , antipsychotics , dietary therapy , fatty acids , and other complementary and alternative medicine .
Clinical differences may exist between the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment used for the management of ADHD .
BACKGROUND Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood .
A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD .
We aim ed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological , psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents .