Taylor 1993.

Study characteristics
Methods	4‐week, double‐blind, cross‐over trial with 3 interventions: MPH 5‐10 mg MPH 10‐15 mg placebo Each medication dose/placebo was given for 1 week
Participants	Number of participants screened: 57 Number of participants included: 57 (27 boys, 5 girls) Number of participants followed up: all 57 completed the trial but only 32 were included in the final analysis Number of withdrawals: 0, but 25 were not reported (due to non‐response and not enough data) Diagnosis of ADHD: DSM‐III‐R Age: mean 10.26 years (range 7.0‐12.9) IQ: mean 107 (SD 16.2; range 78‐139) MPH‐naive: 12 (37.5%) Ethnicity: not stated Country: Canada Setting: outpatient clinic Comorbidity: not stated Comedication: not stated Other sociodemographics: none Inclusion criteria 7‐12 years of age Verbal or performance IQ ≥ 85 Exclusion criteria No information
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to possible drug condition orders of, respectively, mean 6.72 mg (5 mg‐10 mg) and mean 11.88 mg (10 mg‐15 mg) MPH and placebo Administration schedule: morning and noon Duration of each medication condition: 1 week Washout before trial initiation: none Titration period: none Treatment compliance: no information
Outcomes	Non‐serious AEs Decreased appetite, trouble falling asleep, stomachache, headache, dysphoria; withdrawn, tearful, anxious, licking lips, picking at skin; facial grimacing, repetitive movements
Notes	Sample calculation: no information Ethics approval: no information Key conclusion of trial authors Only ERPs (event‐related potentials) reflected slowed processing in children with ADHD that normalised with appropriate medication Inclusion of MPH responders only/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: not declared Email correspondence with trial authors: January 2014. No supplemental information was received. We therefore have no more information on numbers of participants with non‐serious AEs.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised. All medication and placebo testing was conducted under double‐blind conditions with randomly assigned testing order
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Active medication and placebo substances were placed in identical red and white capsules in powder form. Matched on both taste and appearance
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	All medication and placebo testing was conducted under double‐blind conditions with randomly assigned testing order, but how blinding was done was not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Selection bias (e.g. titration after randomisation → exclusion): this series of 32 children with ADHD does not include an additional group of 12 children with ADHD, who after drug trials were deemed "non‐responders" as well as 13 participants on whom adequate Event‐Related Potentials data were not obtained
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Did not report AE data