Moshe 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	2‐week, randomised, double‐blind, cross‐over trial with 2 interventions: MPH placebo
Participants	Number of participants screened: 78 Number of participants included: 57 (all boys) Number of participants followed up: 57 Number of withdrawals: 0 Diagnosis of ADHD: DSM‐IV (combined and hyperactive‐impulsive (53%), inattentive (47%)) Age: mean 9.5 years (range 7‐12) IQ: normal MPH‐naive: 100% Ethnicity: not stated Country: Israel Setting: outpatient clinic Comorbidity: no Comedication: no Other sociodemographics: representing all socioeconomic strata Inclusion criteria Male 7‐12 years ADHD, DSM‐IV Drug‐naive and with no other intervention Suitable candidate for MPH treatment Attention disorder was associated with a significant effect on daily life, and scores on 1 of the Attention subscales of both parent and teacher questionnaires were 1.5 SD or above the mean as suggested in clinical guidelines Exclusion criteria Chronic psychiatric and neurological disorders, for example, OCD Tourette's syndrome Seizure disorder Severe learning disability (defined by special education enrolment) Definitive primary diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (DSM‐IV) or sensory impairment
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 possible drug condition orders of 0.3 mg/kg IR‐MPH and placebo MPH dose range: 6 mg‐12 mg Administration schedule: once daily Duration of each medication condition: 1 week Washout before trial initiation: no (drug‐naive) Titration period: no Treatment compliance: not stated
Outcomes	ADHD symptoms CTRS, revised: weekly (after each intervention period)
Notes	Sample calculation: yes Ethics approval: yes Comments from trial authors Results of the present study should be interpreted with caution As only boys were included, the results might not be valid for girls Children were clinic referrals and therefore might not be representative of the population of children with ADHD at large Exclusion of MPH non‐responders/children who have previously experienced AEs while taking MPH before randomisation: no Any withdrawals due to AEs: no Funding source: none Email correspondence with trial authors: April‐October 2013. We received supplemental data from trial authors
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomly assigned with a table of random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Placebo (prepared as look‐alike capsules by the hospital pharmacy)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐blind
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No withdrawals Selection bias (e.g. titration after randomisation → exclusion): no
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No indication of selective reporting. According to trial authors, all planned outcomes were assessed and analysed