Table 1.

Quality assessment of the studies included

Criteria author	1. Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form?	2. Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given?	3. Was the effectiveness of the programs or services established?	4. Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified?	5. Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units prior to valuation?	6. Were the cost and consequences valued credibly?	7. Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing?	8. Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed?	9. Was uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences adequately characterized?	10. Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users?	Score
ADHD
Tran et al. [40]	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	x	✓	x	✓	0.70
Sonuga-Barke et al. [32]	✓	✓	✓	✓	Unclear	Unclear	n.a.	✓	Unclear	✓	0.83
Zimovetz et al. [33]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	1.00
Sohn et al. [34]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	n.a.	✓	✓	✓	1.00
Maia et al. [35]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	0.90
Lachaine, et al. [36]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	n.a.	✓	✓	✓	1.00
Schawo et al. [37]	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	0.90
van der Schans, et al. [38]	✓	✓	Unclear	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	0.95
Erder et al. [41]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	n.a.	✓	x	x	0.78
Sikirica et al. [39]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	n.a.	✓	✓	✓	1.00
Autism spectrum disorder
Byford et al. [42]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	n.a.	✓	✓	✓	1.00
Penner et al. [43]	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	0.90
% Meet criterion	100%	100%	75%	83%	92%	92%	83%	100%	67%	92%