Rodriguez 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel trial Comparison: omega‐3 PUFA vs placebo
Participants	Inclusion criteria: 1. boys and girls between 6 and 18 years of age; 2. DSM‐5 diagnosis of ADHD confirmed by a trained researcher using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children‐Parent Version (DISC‐P) with any subtype of ADHD (hyperactive‐impulsive, inattentive, combined hyperactive‐inattentive) Exclusion criteria: 1. total IQ scores lower than 70 and greater than 130; 2. blood coagulation disorders, cognitive impairment, or autism spectrum disorder; 3. intolerance to fish proteins, and treatment with dietary supplements containing omega‐6 or omega‐3 PUFAs during the preceding month Number of participants: not stated Mean age: 11.7 years Gender: not stated ADHD subtypes: not stated Using ADHD drugs at baseline: more than 70% were using psychostimulant medication Baseline: not stated Comorbid conditions: present in 12 and 4 participants in the DHA and placebo groups, respectively Setting: faculty of psychology, Spain, year/s not stated Funding: not stated
Interventions	Intervention (32 participants): each sachet of omega‐3 fatty acids contained: 1000 mg DHA, 90 mg EPA, and 150 mg docosapentaenoic acid. Doses were 1 sachet/day in children weighing ≤ 32 kg and 2 sachets/day in those weighing > 32 kg for 6 months Control (34 participants): placebo sachets were composed of the same amount of olive oil with banana flavour to give a similar taste and smell
Outcomes	ADHD symptoms at 3, 6 months Scale for the Assessment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (EDAH) for families Abbreviated Conners Rating Scale ‐ Parent
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomization (1:1) was performed according to a computer‐generated random sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants, parents, and investigators assessing outcome measures were blind to the intervention condition
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants, parents, and investigators assessing outcome measures were blind to the intervention condition
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	ITT analyses were referred to in paper but were not reported, 19/85 lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All relevant outcomes listed in paper were reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Baseline scores were similar for PUFA and placeo but other comparisons between groups were not reported