Summary of findings 3. Cognitive‐behavioural therapy versus other non‐pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.
| Cognitive‐behavioural therapy versus other interventions for ADHD in adults | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults with ADHD Setting: ambulatory/hospital (outpatients) Intervention: CBT Comparison: other specific non‐pharmacological treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with control conditions | Risk with CBT | |||||
| ADHD symptoms: clinician‐rated Assessed by: various scales Follow‐up: 10 to 12 weeks |
— | The mean ADHD clinician‐rated symptoms score in the intervention groups was 0.58 standardised deviations lower (0.98 lower to 0.17 lower) | — | 97 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | Moderate effect sizeb |
| ADHD symptoms: self‐reported Assessed by: various scales Follow‐up: 8 to 12 weeks |
— | The mean ADHD self‐reported symptoms score in the intervention groups was 0.44 standardised deviations lower (0.88 lower to 0.01 lower) | — | 156 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | Small effect sizeb |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). ADHD: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; CBT: cognitive‐behavioural therapy; CI: confidence interval. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
a We downgraded the quality of evidence because of imprecision (considering the width of the CI) and methodological limitations (due to the high risk of bias in blinding of participants and personnel and three other domains with unclear risk of bias). bTo assess the magnitude of effect for continuous outcomes, we used the criteria suggested by Cohen 1988: 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect.