Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026
Emotional problems and dysregulation in children/youth with ADHD: predictive and moderating effects in a randomized controlled trial of methylphenidate and neurofeedback.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bohner Amelie, Blasco-Fontecilla Hilario, Ros Tomas, Acquaviva Eric, Attal Yohan, Banaschewski Tobias, Baumeister Sarah, Bousquet Elisa, Bussalb Aurore, Delhaye Marie, Delorme Richard, Drechsler Renate, Goujon Allison, Häge Alexander, Mayaud Louis, Mechler Konstantin, Menache Caroline, Revol Olivier, Tagwerker Friederike, Walitza Susanne, Werling Anna Maria, Bioulac Stéphanie, Brandeis Daniel, Purper-Ouakil Diane, Kaiser Anna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often show increased emotional dysregulation (ED) and internalizing emotional problems (iEP). However, the predictive and moderating role of these emotional difficulties in the treatment of ADHD-particularly regarding pharmacological (methylphenidate, MPH) and non-pharmacological approaches (neurofeedback at home, NF@home)-remains understudied. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of MPH and NF@home in reducing iEP/ED in children with ADHD and to assess the predictive role of iEP/ED and neuropsychological executive function (EF) measures in treatment outcomes.
METHODS: The per-protocol sample included 146 children (7-13 years) diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive or combined type). iEP was measured with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), ED via a dysregulation profile, and EF using the BRIEF and Continuous Performance Test (CPT). ADHD symptoms were assessed using the ADHD Rating Scale IV. Participants were randomized to either the MPH group (n = 59) or the NF group (n = 87), which included NFSMR (n = 72) and NFTBR (n = 15), based on individual Theta/Beta-Ratio (TBR). Mixed-model analyses considered symptom severity at baseline, age, gender, IQ, and study center as covariates.
RESULTS: All intervention groups showed significant changes in iEP, but with different effects regarding parent (NFSMR: d = -0.396, 95% CI [-0.574, -0.217]; NFTBR: d = -0.367, 95% CI [-0.747, 0.013]; MPH: d = -0.409, 95% CI [-0.603, -0.215]) and teacher ratings (NFSMR: d = -0.211, 95% CI [-0.405, -0.017]; NFTBR: d = -0.639, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.222]; MPH: d = -0.142, 95% CI [-0.340, 0.056]). There was no between-intervention effect, supported by non-inferiority analyses. For ED, we also found significant effects for all interventions; however, significantly more pronounced effects were obtained for MPH. Moreover, both prediction models indicated a limited predictive value.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest non-inferiority of NF versus MPH treating iEP within an ADHD sample. However, due to limited predictive value, no clear clinical guidance can yet be drawn regarding personalized treatment recommendations. Further studies are needed to confirm and extend these findings.
METHODS: The per-protocol sample included 146 children (7-13 years) diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive or combined type). iEP was measured with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), ED via a dysregulation profile, and EF using the BRIEF and Continuous Performance Test (CPT). ADHD symptoms were assessed using the ADHD Rating Scale IV. Participants were randomized to either the MPH group (n = 59) or the NF group (n = 87), which included NFSMR (n = 72) and NFTBR (n = 15), based on individual Theta/Beta-Ratio (TBR). Mixed-model analyses considered symptom severity at baseline, age, gender, IQ, and study center as covariates.
RESULTS: All intervention groups showed significant changes in iEP, but with different effects regarding parent (NFSMR: d = -0.396, 95% CI [-0.574, -0.217]; NFTBR: d = -0.367, 95% CI [-0.747, 0.013]; MPH: d = -0.409, 95% CI [-0.603, -0.215]) and teacher ratings (NFSMR: d = -0.211, 95% CI [-0.405, -0.017]; NFTBR: d = -0.639, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.222]; MPH: d = -0.142, 95% CI [-0.340, 0.056]). There was no between-intervention effect, supported by non-inferiority analyses. For ED, we also found significant effects for all interventions; however, significantly more pronounced effects were obtained for MPH. Moreover, both prediction models indicated a limited predictive value.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest non-inferiority of NF versus MPH treating iEP within an ADHD sample. However, due to limited predictive value, no clear clinical guidance can yet be drawn regarding personalized treatment recommendations. Further studies are needed to confirm and extend these findings.