Ivity 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel trial Comparison: omega‐3 PUFA supplement vs placebo
Participants	Inclusion criteria: 1. children aged between 5 and 12 years; 2. diagnosed by a qualified healthcare professional (paediatrician, psychiatrist, or psychologist) as having any of the subtypes of ADHD, according to DSM‐IV criteria; 3. of normal intelligence according to parent report or an IQ of at least 70 on a standardised test. Participants could present with comorbid conditions, including oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and learning disorders. Exclusion criteria: 1. taking medication to treat ADHD or other prescription medication, or both; 2. consuming any special diets or supplements that contained DHA; 3. diagnosed with foetal alcohol syndrome or autism Number of participants: not stated Median age: not stated Gender: not stated ADHD subtypes: not stated Using ADHD drugs at baseline: 0% Baseline scores: not stated Setting: mental health organisation, Canada, year/s not stated Funding: not stated
Interventions	Intervention (13 participants): omega‐3 PUFA for 4 months; 2 capsules (children weighing 40 to 79 pounds) or 3 capsules (children weighing 80 to 140 pounds) of Omega‐3 Think (Genuine Health, Toronto, Canada) capsules (250 mg of DHA and 100 mg of EPA) Control (13 participants): placebo for 4 months; capsules containing olive oil
Outcomes	ADHD symptoms measured at 8 and 16 weeks Teacher‐rated Conners 3 Rating Scale
Notes	Only inattention at 8 weeks was reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Both the supplement and placebo capsules were counted and put into identical opaque Nalgene pill bottles by the assistant and numerically coded
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Method of blinding not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Method of blinding not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	30/56 LTFU
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Only inattention at 8 weeks was reported
Other bias	High risk	Demographic characteristics of participants, and reasons for withdrawal/drop‐out were not reported