January 4, 2024

Meta-analysis suggests acupuncture might offer effective treatment for ADHD, but suffers from methodological flaws

Noting that previous “systematic reviews concluded that currently available data on the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture for treating ADHD are yet to be sufficient to support its routine use,” a South Korean study team conducted an updated systematic search of the medical literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with drug treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD. There were no restrictions on language or publication type.

Only two of the meta-analyses involved more than two RCTs. 

One of them, of six RCTs with a combined 541 participants, reported total treatment efficacy of acupuncture to be at least equal to that of conventional treatment with ADHD medicines. 

Another, of five RCTs with a total of 351 participants, reported total treatment efficacy of combined acupuncture and ADHD drugs to be at least equal to that of conventional treatment with ADHD medicines.

Two RCTs with a Noting that previous “systematic reviews concluded that currently available data on the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture for treating ADHD are yet to be sufficient to support its routine use,” a South Korean study team conducted an updated systematic search of the medical literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with drug treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD. There were no restrictions on language or publication type.

Only two of the meta-analyses involved more than two RCTs. 

One of them, of six RCTs with a combined 541 participants, reported total treatment efficacy of acupuncture to be at least equal to that of conventional treatment with ADHD medicines. 

Another, of five RCTs with a total of 351 participants, reported total treatment efficacy of combined acupuncture and ADHD drugs to be at least equal to that of conventional treatment with ADHD medicines.

Two RCTs with a combined 152 participants reported a large effect size improvement in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms from acupuncture treatment versus conventional drug treatment.

From this one could superficially conclude that acupuncture is at least as effective for treating ADHD as the medicines currently considered to be the standard of care, and that there is no need to combine acupuncture with drug treatment.

However, there were numerous methodological shortcomings:

  • No effort was made to look for publication bias.
  • There were few RCTs, and the combined number of participants was relatively small.
  • Only one of the six RCTs in the first meta-analysis and none of the five RCTs in the second meta-analysis was rated “low risk of bias.”
  • Though nowhere stated in the journal article, there may have been cultural bias as well. All studies included in the meta-analyses were conducted in China. As China has emerged as a global superpower, it has been eager to portray its traditional medicine as at least equal if not superior to forms of medicine originating elsewhere.
  • The authors noted, “the quality of the studies included in this systematic review was poor. Assessing the blinding of studies is a major aspect in determining the risk of bias of a study, but most of the studies did not provide any relevant information.” 

The authors concluded, “The current evidence on AT [acupuncture treatment] is still too limited to support its routine use in treating ADHD.”

152 participants reported a large effect size improvement in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms from acupuncture treatment versus conventional drug treatment.

From this one could superficially conclude that acupuncture is at least as effective for treating ADHD as the medicines currently considered to be the standard of care, and furthermore that there is no need to combine acupuncture with drug treatment.

However, there were numerous methodological shortcomings:

  • No effort was made to look for publication bias.
  • There were few RCTs, and the combined number of participants was relatively small.
  • Only one of the six RCTs in the first meta-analysis and none of the five RCTs in the second meta-analysis was rated “low risk of bias.”
  • Though nowhere stated in the journal article, there may have been cultural bias as well. All studies included in the meta-analyses were conducted in China. As China has emerged as a global superpower, it has been eager to portray its traditional medicine as at least equal if not superior to forms of medicine originating elsewhere.
  • The authors noted, “the quality of the studies included in this systematic review was poor. Assessing the blinding of studies is a major aspect in determining the risk of bias of a study, but most of the studies did not provide any relevant information.” 

The authors concluded, “The current evidence on AT [acupuncture treatment] is still too limited to support its routine use in treating ADHD.”

Lin Ang, Jung Tae Kim, Kibong Kim, Hye Won Lee, Jun-Yong Choi, Eunseop Kim, and Myeong Soo Lee, “Acupuncture for Treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Medicina (2023), 59, 392, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59020392.

Related posts

No items found.

Meta-analysis Finds Little Evidence in Support of Game-based Digital Interventions for ADHD

ADHD treatment usually involves a combination of medication and behavioral therapy. However, medication can cause side effects, adherence problems, and resistance from patients or caregivers. 

Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on ADHD. With little research specifically examining game-based interventions for children and adolescents with ADHD or conducting meta-analyses to quantify their treatment effectiveness, a Korean study team performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to do just that.  

The Study: 

To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. The team excluded RCTs that included participants with psychiatric conditions other than ADHD.  

Eight studies met these standards. Four had a high risk of bias.  

Meta-analysis of four RCTs with a combined total of 481 participants reported no significant improvements in either working memory or inhibition from game-based digital interventions relative to controls. 

Likewise, meta-analysis of three RCTs encompassing 160 children and adolescents found no significant improvement in shifting tasks relative to controls. 

And meta-analysis of two RCTs combining 131 participants reported no significant gains in initiating, planning, organizing, and monitoring abilities, nor in emotional control

The only positive results were from two RCTs with only 90 total participants that indicated some improvement in visuospatial short-term memory and visuospatial working memory.  

There was no indication of effect size, because the team used mean differences instead of standardized mean differences.  

Conclusion:

The team concluded, “The meta-analysis revealed that game-based interventions significantly improved cognitive functions: (a) visuospatial short-term memory … and (b) visuospatial working memory … However, effects on behavioral aspects such as inhibition and monitoring … were not statistically significant, suggesting limited behavioral improvement following the interventions.” 

Simply put, the current evidence does not support the effectiveness of game-based interventions in improving behavioral symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents. The only positive results were from two studies with a small combined sample size, which does not qualify as a genuine meta-analysis. All the other meta-analyses performed with larger sample sizes reported no benefits. 

Understanding Teen Health and Well-being in ADHD: A Fresh Perspective from the CDC

Recent research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) highlights distinct health and social-emotional challenges faced by teens diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This study, published in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, offers critical insights directly from the teens themselves, providing a unique view often missed when relying solely on parent or clinical reports. 

Researchers analyzed nationally representative data from July 2021 through December 2022, comparing self-reported experiences of teens aged 12 to 17 with and without ADHD. Approximately 10% of teenagers had an ADHD diagnosis, and the findings reveal specific areas where teens with ADHD face notable difficulties. 

Teenagers with ADHD reported significantly higher rates of bullying victimization and struggles in making friends compared to their peers. Surprisingly, they were less likely to report a lack of peer support, suggesting complexities in how they perceive friendships and social networks. The study underscores the importance of directly engaging teens in assessing their social relationships, rather than solely relying on parental perspectives. 

Sleep difficulties emerged as another critical issue for teens with ADHD. About 80% reported problems like difficulty waking up and irregular wake times, markedly higher than their non-ADHD counterparts. Such disruptions can exacerbate attention difficulties and emotional regulation issues, further complicating daily life for these teens. 

Excessive screen time also stood out, with nearly two-thirds of teens with ADHD spending over four hours daily on screens, excluding schoolwork. This high screen usage is concerning, given its potential negative impact on physical and mental health, including sleep quality and social interactions. 

Notably, the study found no significant differences in physical activity levels or concerns about weight between teens with and without ADHD. This finding contrasts with previous studies that have highlighted lower physical activity among children with ADHD, suggesting the need for continued research on how physical activity is measured and encouraged in this population. 

The study’s authors emphasize the importance of health promotion interventions tailored specifically for teens with ADHD. By directly engaging teens and considering their unique perspectives, interventions can better address social-emotional well-being and healthy lifestyle behaviors, ultimately improving long-term outcomes for this vulnerable group. 

Overall, this research provides compelling evidence for healthcare providers, educators, and families to focus on supporting teens with ADHD in areas of social skills, sleep hygiene, and healthy screen time habits. Such targeted support can significantly enhance the quality of life and health outcomes for adolescents navigating the challenges of ADHD. 

Meta-analysis Reports No Significant Evidence for Efficacy of Neuromechanistic Treatments for Adult ADHD

The Background on ADHD Treatments, rTMS and tDCS:

Methylphenidate is known as the gold-standard treatment for ADHD, increasing dopamine concentrations and helping to focus. However, these psychostimulants may be less well-tolerated in adults. Adverse effects include decreased appetite, nausea, racing heartbeat, restlessness, nervousness, and insomnia. 

Neurofeedback is a non-pharmaceutical treatment that combines cognitive behavioral therapy techniques like conditioning and positive reinforcement with electroencephalography (EEG) feedback. Electrodes are placed on specific brain areas, guiding patients to regulate their brainwave activity. 

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) uses electromagnetism to induce an electric field by passing a magnetic field through the scalp. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on the other hand, directly applies an electric current through the scalp. Both repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and tDCS primarily target the outermost layers of neurons, as they are non-invasive methods. Nevertheless, both techniques are believed to affect deeper layers through interconnected neuronal networks.  

The Study:

A French research team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to perform a meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of these experimental treatment techniques. 

Eight studies – four using rTMS and another four using tDCS – met the inclusion criteria. Studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and had to involve multiple sessions of treatment. Participants had to be adults previously diagnosed with ADHD.  

Outcomes were measured through self-rated scales, neuropsychological tests, and electrophysiological pre-post evaluations. 

Separate meta-analyses of the four tDCS RCTs combining 154 participants and of the four rTMS RCTs encompassing 149 participants likewise reported no significant improvements. In all cases variation in outcomes between studies was moderate, and there were no signs of publication bias. 

The Conclusion on Neuromechanistic Treatments for ADHD:

Meta-analysis of all eight studies with a combined total of 421 participants reported no significant improvements over controls. Narrowing down to studies that used sham controls likewise produced no significant improvements. So, despite the title of this study, these neuromechanistic treatments do not appear to be the future of treatment for adult ADHD.