14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Noninvasive brain stimulation in children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article
      , PhD , , PhD, , PhD
      Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience : JPN
      Joule Inc.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could provide treatment alternatives to stimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), given some evidence for improvements in cognition and clinical symptoms. However, despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS and tDCS are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically appraise rTMS and tDCS studies in ADHD to inform good research and clinical practice.

          Methods

          A systematic search (up to February 2019) identified 18 studies (rTMS 4, tDCS 14; 311 children and adults with ADHD) stimulating mainly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). We included 12 anodal tDCS studies (232 children and adults with ADHD) in 3 random-effects meta-analyses of cognitive measures of attention, inhibition and processing speed.

          Results

          The review of rTMS and tDCS showed positive effects in some functions but not others, and little evidence for clinical improvement. The meta-analyses of 1 to 5 sessions of anodal tDCS over mainly the left or bilateral dlPFC showed trend-level improvements in inhibition and processing speed, but not in attention.

          Limitations

          Heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, patient age and outcome measures limited the interpretation of findings.

          Conclusion

          The review and meta-analysis showed limited evidence that 1 to 5 sessions of rTMS and tDCS, mostly of the dlPFC, improved clinical or cognitive measures of ADHD. These findings did not support using rTMS or tDCS of the dlPFC as an alternative neurotherapy for ADHD as yet. Larger, multi-session stimulation studies identifying more optimal sites and stimulation parameters in combination with cognitive training could achieve larger effects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references124

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs

              Effect sizes are the most important outcome of empirical studies. Most articles on effect sizes highlight their importance to communicate the practical significance of results. For scientists themselves, effect sizes are most useful because they facilitate cumulative science. Effect sizes can be used to determine the sample size for follow-up studies, or examining effects across studies. This article aims to provide a practical primer on how to calculate and report effect sizes for t-tests and ANOVA's such that effect sizes can be used in a-priori power analyses and meta-analyses. Whereas many articles about effect sizes focus on between-subjects designs and address within-subjects designs only briefly, I provide a detailed overview of the similarities and differences between within- and between-subjects designs. I suggest that some research questions in experimental psychology examine inherently intra-individual effects, which makes effect sizes that incorporate the correlation between measures the best summary of the results. Finally, a supplementary spreadsheet is provided to make it as easy as possible for researchers to incorporate effect size calculations into their workflow.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Psychiatry Neurosci
                J Psychiatry Neurosci
                Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience : JPN
                Joule Inc.
                1180-4882
                1488-2434
                January 2021
                01 October 2020
                : 46
                : 1
                : E14-E33
                Affiliations
                From the Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom (Westwood, Rubia); the Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain (Radua); the Mental Health Research Networking Centre (CIBERSAM), Madrid, Spain (Radua); the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatric Research and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, Stockholm, Sweden (Radua); and the Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, United Kingdom (Radua)
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: S.J. Westwood, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry PO46, Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry (SGDP) Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom; samuel.westwood@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                46-1-e14
                10.1503/jpn.190179
                7955851
                33009906
                729bdf76-b5e6-412d-b483-804b12bd48ef
                © 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is non-commercial (i.e. research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 28 October 2019
                : 06 February 2020
                : 29 February 2020
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article