The Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: An Annotated Bibliography and Critical Appraisal of Published Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses
The Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: An Annotated Bibliography and Critical Appraisal of Published Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses
复制标题
注意力缺陷多动障碍的治疗：带注释的参考书目以及对已发表的系统评论和荟萃分析的批判性评估
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Schachar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Jadad;L. Booker;M. Gauld;R. Kakuma;Michael Boyle;C. Cunningham;Marie Kim;R. Schachar
内容：卫生保健政策和研究机构委托麦克马斯特循证实践中心对有关注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）治疗的文献进行全面系统的综述，并从各利益相关者群体中获得投入。避免重复工作的一个策略是对现有的系统性综述和荟萃分析进行批判性评估。目的：识别和评价已发表的关于ADHD治疗的荟萃分析和系统评价，并制作注释书目。数据来源：检索Medline、CINAHL、Healthstar、Psycinfo和Embase，直至1998年9月;还审查了科克伦数据库（1998年第3期）、选定的互联网站点和研究者的文件。研究选择：由3名评审员独立识别描述为系统综述或荟萃分析或包括方法部分的综述文章。数据提取：两名评审员通过协商一致提取了这些综述的名称、方法学质量、ADHD相关方面（共病障碍、家族特征）的相关信息;还检索了关于人群、研究环境、干预措施和评价结果的数据。结果：13篇综述，发表于1982年至1998年，包括在内。8项包括荟萃分析，5项为定性综述。6篇综述提及非药物治疗，3篇综述提及联合治疗。一项审查侧重于成人的治疗。共提及47种药物和20种不良反应。大多数审查在方法上存在重大缺陷。结论：大多数已发表的关于ADHD治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析对指导临床、政策和研究决策的价值有限。严格的，系统的审查后建立的方法标准是必要的。
Context: The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research charged the McMaster Evidence-based Practice Center with conducting a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with input from various groups of stakeholders. One strategy used to avoid duplication of work included a critical appraisal of existing systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Objective: To identify and appraise published metaanalyses and systematic reviews on the treatment of ADHD and to produce an annotated bibliography. Data Sources: Medline, Cumulative Index in Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Healthstar, Psycinfo, and Embase were searched to September 1998; the Cochrane Database (1998 issue 3), selected Internet sites, and the files of investigators were also reviewed. Study Selection: Review articles described as systematic reviews or metaanalyses or including a Methods section were identified independently by 3 reviewers. Data Extraction: Two reviewers extracted, by consensus, relevant information on the name, methodological quality, ADHD-related aspects (comorbid disorders, family characteristics) of those reviews; data on the population, study setting, interventions, and outcomes evaluated by the reviews were also retrieved. Results: Thirteen reviews, published from 1982 to 1998, were included. Eight included metaanalysis and 5 a qualitative review. Non-pharmacological treatments were mentioned in 6 reviews and combination therapies in 3. One review focused on the treatment of adults. Forty-seven drugs and 20 adverse effects were mentioned. Most reviews had major methodological flaws. Conclusions: Most published systematic reviews and metaanalyses on the treatment of ADHD have limited value for guiding clinical, policy, and research decisions. A rigorous, systematic review following established methodological criteria is warranted.
儿童和青少年精神病学中的精神药理学：过去七年的回顾。
DOI：
10.1097/00004583-199510000-00011
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Campbell,M;Cueva,JE
通讯作者：
Cueva,JE
NIMH 针对 ADHD 儿童的多中心多模式协作治疗研究：I. 背景和理由。
DOI：
10.1097/00004583-199508000-00008
发表时间：
1995
影响因子：
13.3
作者：
Richters,JE;Arnold,LE;Jensen,PS;Abikoff,H;Conners,CK;Greenhill,LL;Hechtman,L;Hinshaw,SP;Pelham,WE;Swanson,JM
通讯作者：
Swanson,JM
DOI：
10.1097/00004583-199806000-00014
发表时间：
1998-06-01
影响因子：
13.3
作者：
Corkum, P;Tannock, R;Moldofsky, H
通讯作者：
Moldofsky, H