A structured approach to information retrieval improved identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the contemporary Cochrane review approach for retrieving information on trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest with a structured approach for information retrieval. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Methodological study of 100 Cochrane reviews from August to December 2020 and one randomly selected trial from each review. Reporting of trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in reviews was compared with information identified using a structured retrieval process, and time to retrieve information was noted. We also formulated a guide to systematic reviewers for efficient information retrieval. RESULTS: Sixty-eight of 100 Cochrane reviews reported trial funding and 24 reported trial researchers' conflicts of interest. A simple structured approach, searching only trial publications (including conflicts of interest disclosure forms), identified funding for 16 additional trials and conflicts of interest information for 39 additional trials. A comprehensive structured approach, searching multiple information sources, identified funding for two additional trials and conflicts of interest for 14 additional trials. The median time to retrieve information was 10 minutes per trial (interquartile range: 7-15) for the simple approach and 20 minutes (11-43) for the comprehensive approach. CONCLUSION: A structured information retrieval approach improves identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model). MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. METHOD: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

Psychological therapies for adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or BPD features-A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of psychological therapies for adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or BPD features. METHODS: We included randomized clinical trials on psychological therapies for adolescents with BPD and BPD features. Data were extracted and assessed for quality according to Cochrane guidelines, and summarized as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and as Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool for each domain. When possible, we pooled trials into meta-analyses, and used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: 10 trials on adolescents with BPD or BPD features were included. All trials were considered at high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence was rated as "very low". We did TSA on the primary outcome and found that the required information size was reached. The risk of random error was thus discarded. CONCLUSION: Only 10 trials have been conducted on adolescents with BPD or BPD features. Of these only few showed superior outcomes of the experimental intervention compared to the control intervention. No adverse effects of the interventions were mentioned. Attrition rates varied from 15-75% in experimental interventions. The overall quality was very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency, which limits the confidence in effect estimates. Due to the high risk of bias, high attrition rates and underpowered studies in this area, it is difficult to derive any conclusions on the efficacy of psychological therapies for BPD in adolescence. There is a need for more high quality trials with larger samples to identify effective psychological therapies for this specific age group with BPD or BPD features.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

Social skills training for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children aged 5 to 18 years.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children is associated with hyperactivity and impulsivity, attention problems, and difficulties with social interactions. Pharmacological treatment may alleviate the symptoms of ADHD but this rarely solves difficulties with social interactions. Children with ADHD may benefit from interventions designed to improve their social skills. We examined the benefits and harms of social skills training on social skills, emotional competencies, general behaviour, ADHD symptoms, performance in school of children with ADHD, and adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of social skills training in children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 4 other databases and two trials registers.We also searched online conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field for information about unpublished or ongoing randomised clinical trials. We did not limit our searches by language, year of publication, or type or status of publication, and we sought translation of the relevant sections of non-English language articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials investigating social skills training versus either no intervention or waiting-list control, with or without pharmacological treatment of both comparison groups of children and adolescents with ADHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. We performed the analyses using Review Manager 5 software and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed bias according to domains for systematic errors. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 randomised clinical trials described in 45 reports. The trials included a total of 2690 participants aged between five and 17 years. In 17 trials, participants were also diagnosed with various comorbidities.The social skills interventions were described as: 1) social skills training, 2) cognitive behavioural therapy, 3) multimodal behavioural/psychosocial therapy, 4) child life and attention skills treatment, 5) life skills training, 6) the "challenging horizon programme", 7) verbal self-instruction, 8) meta-cognitive training, 9) behavioural therapy, 10) behavioural and social skills treatment, and 11) psychosocial treatment. The control interventions were no intervention or waiting list.The duration of the interventions ranged from five weeks to two years. We considered the content of the social skills interventions to be comparable and based on a cognitive-behavioural model. Most of the trials compared child social skills training or parent training combined with medication versus medication alone. Some of the experimental interventions also included teacher consultations.More than half of the trials were at high risk of bias for generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment. No trial reported on blinding of participants and personnel. Most of the trials did not report on differences between groups in medication for comorbid disorders. We used all eligible trials in the meta-analyses, but downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low or very low.We found no clinically relevant treatment effect of social skills interventions on the primary outcome measures: teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.22; 11 trials, 1271 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.05); teacher-rated emotional competencies at end of treatment (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.68; two trials, 129 participants; I2 = 74%; P = 0.96); or on teacher-rated general behaviour (SMD -0.06 (negative value better), 95% CI -0.19 to 0.06; eight trials, 1002 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.33). The effect on the primary outcome, teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment, corresponds to a MD of 1.22 points on the social skills rating system (SSRS) scale (95% CI 0.09 to 2.36). The minimal clinical relevant difference (10%) on the SSRS is 10.0 points (range 0 to 102 points on SSRS).We found evidence in favour of social skills training on teacher-rated core ADHD symptoms at end of treatment for all eligible trials (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05; 14 trials, 1379 participants; I2= 69%; P = 0.02), but the finding is questionable due to lack of support from sensitivity analyses, high risk of bias, lack of clinical significance, high heterogeneity, and low certainty.The studies did not report any serious or non-serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that there is little evidence to support or refute social skills training for children and adolescents with ADHD. We may need more trials that are at low risk of bias and a sufficient number of participants to determine the efficacy of social skills training versus no training for ADHD. The evidence base regarding adolescents is especially weak.

Methodological advantages and disadvantages of parallel and crossover randomised clinical trials on methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological advantages and disadvantages of parallel and crossover designs in randomised clinical trials on methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). DESIGN: Secondary analyses of a Cochrane systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We searched relevant databases up to March 2015 and included data from parallel and crossover randomised trials assessing children and adolescents up to 18 years with ADHD. INTERVENTIONS: Methylphenidate compared with placebo or no-treatment interventions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were non-serious adverse events. RESULTS: We included 38 parallel trials (n=5111) and 147 crossover trials (n=7134). When comparing methylphenidate with placebo or no-treatment on ADHD symptoms, we found no differences between the end of parallel trials and the first-period from crossover trials (Χ²=1.06, df=1, p=0.30, I²=5.5%). We also found no differences when combining the end of first-period crossover trials with the end of parallel trials and comparing them to the end of last-period crossover trials (Χ²=3.25, df=1, p=0.07, I²=69.2%). We found no differences in serious and non-serious adverse events, and no risk of period and carryover effects. However, only two trials contributed data to the latter analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both parallel and crossover trials seem suitable for investigating methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ADHD, with comparable estimates on ADHD symptom severity and adverse events. However, parallel trials might still offer ethical and statistical advantages over crossover trials.

The Jury Is Still Out on the Benefits and Harms of Methylphenidate for Children and Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Much remains unclear about the benefits and harms of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Between 2012 and 2018, we conducted two Cochrane systematic reviews on methylphenidate for ADHD. This article explores the main findings in relation to evidence-based practice and our current understanding of ADHD.

Training, executive, attention and motor skills (TEAMS) training versus standard treatment for preschool children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effectiveness of manualised training, executive, attention, and motor skills (TEAMS) training versus standard treatment in preschool children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We conducted a randomised parallel group, single-blinded, superiority trial. The primary outcome was ADHD symptoms and the secondary outcome was functionality. Parents and primary school teachers assessed outcomes at pretreatment, posttreatment, and at one, three, and 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 67 children (aged 3-6 years) were randomised. In the TEAMS group, 32 out of 33 (97%) participants completed the total 8-week program, compared with only 7 out of 26 (27%) in the control group. The repeated-model analyses showed no significant change between the two interventions for ADHD symptoms and functionality levels over time. The mean difference in ADHD symptoms between TEAMS versus standard treatment at posttreatment was 2.18 points (95% confidence interval - 8.62 to 13.0; trial sequential analysis-adjusted confidence interval - 19.3 to 23.7). Trial registration Clinical Trials identifier: NCT01918436 (Retrospectively registered). Registered on 7 August 2013.