European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 145–146 | Cite as

Methodological concerns with network meta-analysis on drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

  • Erlend Glasø FaltinsenEmail author
  • Ole Jakob Storebø
  • Christian Gluud
Letter to the Editor

We thank Padilha and colleagues for their network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents [1]. The network meta-analysis looks comprehensive and the results are interesting. We invite readers to consider the following potential limitations of the study.

The authors included head-to-head randomised clinical trials, with only 12 trials in the benefit analyses and 33 trials in the harm analyses [1]. By excluding placebo-controlled trials, they focus on a small and select sample out of the many available trials on drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. The authors also stress the limited amount of comparisons themselves in their discussion section [1]. When we systematically reviewed methylphenidate alone, we found 185 randomised clinical trials on methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention [2]. Head-to-head comparisons can be informative, but it would have been...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.


  1. 1.
    Padilha SCOS., Virtuoso S, Tonin FS, Borba HHL, Pontarolo R (2018). Efficacy and safety of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Storebø OJ, Ramstad E, Krogh HB, Nilausen TD, Skoog M, Holmskov M et al (2015) Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (Art. No.: CD009885)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y et al (2018) Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 391(10128):1357–1366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (eds) (2017) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.2.0 [updated June 2017]. Cochrane.
  6. 6.
    Rodrigues-Tartari R, Swardfager W, Salum GA, Rohde LA, Cogo-Moreira H (2018) Assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 27:e1586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. (Art. No.: MR000033)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Punja S, Shamseer L, Hartling L, Urichuk L, Vandermeer B, Nikles J et al (2016) Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (Art. No.: CD009996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Catalá-López F, Hutton B, Núñez-Beltrán A, Page MJ, Ridao M, Macías Saint-Gerons D et al (2017) The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomised trials. PLoS One 12:e0180355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cipriani A, Higgins JPT, Geddes JR, Salanti G (2013) Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 159:130–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    InHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Rovers MM, Goerman JJ (2016) Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open 6:e010247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faltinsen EG, Storebø O, Jakobsen J, Boesen K, Lange T, Gluud C (2018) Network meta-analysis: the highest level of medical evidence? BMJ Evid Based Med 23:56–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Del Re AC, Spielmans GI, Flückiger C, Wampold BE (2013) Efficacy of new generation antidepressants: differences seem illusory. PLoS One 8:e63509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychiatric Research UnitRegion Zealand PsychiatrySlagelseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, RigshospitaletCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations