Dataset Information

Efficacy of Online Intervention for ADHD: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With the popularity of computers, the internet, and the global spread of COVID-19, more and more attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients need timely interventions through the internet. At present, there are many online intervention schemes may help these patients. It is necessary to integrate data to analyze their effectiveness.

Objectives

Our purpose is to integrate the ADHD online interventions trials, study its treatment effect and analyze its feasibility, and provide reference information for doctors in other institutions to formulate better treatment plans.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane libraries. We didn't limit the start date and end date of search results. Our last search was on December 1, 2021. The keyword is ADHD online therapy. We used the Cochrane bias risk tool to assess the quality of included studies, used the standardized mean difference (SMD) as an effect scale indicator to measure data. Random effects model, subgroup analysis were used to analyze the data.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, including 261 patients with ADHD. These studies showed that online interventions was more effective than waiting list in improving attention deficit and social function of adults and children with ADHD. The attention deficit scores of subjects were calculated in six studies. The sample size of the test group was 123, the sample size of the control group was 133, and the combined SMD was -0.73 (95% confidence interval: -1.01, -0.44). The social function scores of subjects were calculated in six studies. The sample size of the experimental group was 123 and the control group was 133. The combined SMD was -0.59 (95% confidence interval: -0.85, -0.33).

Conclusions

The results show that online interventions of ADHD may be an effective intervention. In the future, we need more online intervention researches to improve the symptoms of different patients, especially for some patients who have difficulties in accepting face-to-face treatment.

SUBMITTER: Shou S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274127 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To assess the effectiveness of physical activity (PA) intervention on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related symptoms. Method: Studies that investigated PA intervention for ADHD-related symptoms were identified through searching PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from inception through June 2021. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the effectiveness of PA intervention on improving ADHD-related symptoms. The meta-analyses were conducted using fixed-effect or random-effect models according to the heterogeneity of the studies. Results: Nine before-after studies (232 participants) and 14 two-group control studies (162 participants/141 controls) were included in this meta-analysis. Combined results for before-after studies indicated significant improvements on all studied ADHD-related symptoms (inattention: SMD = 0.604, 95% CI: 0.374-0.834, p < 0.001; hyperactivity/impulsivity: SMD = 0.676, 95% CI: 0.401-0.950, p < 0.001; emotional problems: SMD = 0.416, 95% CI: 0.283-0.549, p < 0.001; behavioral problems: SMD = 0.347, 95% CI: 0.202-0.492, p < 0.001). Meta-analyses for two-group control studies further confirmed that PA intervention significantly improved the inattentive symptom (SMD = 0.715, 95% CI: 0.105, 1.325, p = 0.022). Subgroup analyses suggested significant beneficial effect on inattention symptoms in children. Moreover, closed motor skills were beneficial for hyperactive/impulsive problems (SMD = 0.671, p < 0.001), while open motor skills were beneficial for attention problems (SMD = 0.455, p = 0.049). When excluding studies with combined medication, the studies in unmedicated participants in before-after studies still showed significant results in all studied ADHD-related symptoms as in the overall analysis. Given the limited sample size, the best frequency and intensity of PA intervention need further investigation. Conclusion: Our results suggested that PA intervention could possibly improve ADHD-related symptoms, especially inattention symptoms. Closed-skill and open-skill activities could be beneficial for hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention symptoms, respectively. Further high-quality randomized clinical trials with large sample size are needed.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise existing knowledge of the efficacy and safety of long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published in the English language between 1950 and 2012. Reference lists of included studies were checked for additional studies.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials of paediatric ADHD patients (<18 years), comparing a long-acting methylphenidate form to a short-acting methylphenidate form.Data extractionTwo authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences (SMDs) between treatment groups. Adverse events were compared using risk differences between treatment groups. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis based on the type of long-acting formulation used.ResultsThirteen RCTs were included; data from 882 participants contributed to the analysis. Meta-analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on hyperactivity/impulsivity had an SMD of -0.30 (95% CI -0.51 to -0.08) favouring the long-acting forms. In contrast, three studies used teacher ratings to report on hyperactivity and had an SMD of 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.52) favouring the short-acting methylphenidate. In addition, subgroup analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on inattention/overactivity indicate that the osmotic release oral system generation long-acting formulation was favoured with an SMD of -0.35 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.17), while the second generation showed less efficacy than the short-acting formulation with an SMD of 0.42 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.68). The long-acting formulations presented with slightly more total reported adverse events (n=578) as compared with the short-acting formulation (n=566).ConclusionsThe findings from this systematic review indicate that the long-acting forms have a modest effect on the severity of inattention/overactivity and hyperactivity/impulsivity according to parent reports, whereas the short-acting methylphenidate was preferred according to teacher reports for hyperactivity.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment for clinical trials continues to be a challenge, as patient recruitment is the single biggest cause of trial delays. Around 80% of trials fail to meet the initial enrollment target and timeline, and these delays can result in lost revenue of as much as US $8 million per day for drug developing companies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of online recruitment of participants for clinical trials compared with traditional in-clinic/offline recruitment methods.MethodsData on recruitment rates (the average number of patients enrolled in the study per month and per day of active recruitment) and conversion rates (the percentage of participants screened who proceed to enroll into the clinical trial), as well as study characteristics and patient demographics were collected from the included studies. Differences in online and offline recruitment rates and conversion rates were examined using random effects models. Further, a nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test was used for additional analysis on the cost-effectiveness of online patient recruitment. All data analyses were conducted in R language, and P<.05 was considered significant.ResultsIn total, 3861 articles were screened for inclusion. Of these, 61 studies were included in the review, and 23 of these were further included in the meta-analysis. We found online recruitment to be significantly more effective with respect to the recruitment rate for active days of recruitment, where 100% (7/7) of the studies included had a better online recruitment rate compared with offline recruitment (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4.17, P=.04). When examining the entire recruitment period in months we found that 52% (12/23) of the studies had a better online recruitment rate compared with the offline recruitment rate (IRR 1.11, P=.71). For cost-effectiveness, we found that online recruitment had a significantly lower cost per enrollee compared with offline recruitment (US $72 vs US $199, P=.04). Finally, we found that 69% (9/13) of studies had significantly better offline conversion rates compared with online conversion rates (risk ratio 0.8, P=.02).ConclusionsTargeting potential participants using online remedies is an effective approach for patient recruitment for clinical research. Online recruitment was both superior in regard to time efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared with offline recruitment. In contrast, offline recruitment outperformed online recruitment with respect to conversion rate.