Computerized cognitive training in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with blinded and objective outcomes
Samuel J. Westwood, Valeria Parlatini, Katya Rubia, Samuele Cortese, Edmund Sonuga‐Barke, European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG), Tobias Banaschewski, Dieter Baeyens, Sven Bölte, Daniel Brandeis, Jan K. Buitelaar, Sara Carucci, David Coghill, David Daley, Manfred Döpfner, M. Ferrín, Cédric Galéra, Chris Hollis, Martin Holtmann, Diane Purper‐Ouakil, Péter Nagy, Paramala Santosh, Emily Simonoff, Edmund Sonuga‐Barke, César A. Soutullo, Argyris Stringaris, Anita Thapar, Saskia Van der Oord, Barbara J. van den Hoofdakker, Alessandro Zuddas
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigated the effects of computerized cognitive training (CCT) on clinical, neuropsychological and academic outcomes in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The authors searched PubMed, Ovid, and Web of Science until 19th January 2022 for parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using CCT in individuals with ADHD. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) between CCT and comparator arms. RCT quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (PROSPERO: CRD42021229279). Thirty-six RCTs were meta-analysed, 17 of which evaluated working memory training (WMT). Analysis of outcomes measured immediately post-treatment and judged to be "probably blinded" (PBLIND; trial n = 14) showed no effect on ADHD total (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI[-0.01 to -0.25]) or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms (SMD = 0.12, 95%[-0.03 to-0.28]). These findings remained when analyses were restricted to trials (n: 5-13) with children/adolescents, low medication exposure, semi-active controls, or WMT or multiple process training. There was a small improvement in inattention symptoms (SMD = 0.17, 95%CI[0.02-0.31]), which remained when trials were restricted to semi-active controls (SMD = 0.20, 95%CI[0.04-0.37]), and doubled in size when assessed in the intervention delivery setting (n = 5, SMD = 0.40, 95%CI[0.09-0.71]), suggesting a setting-specific effect. CCT improved WM (verbal: n = 15, SMD = 0.38, 95%CI[0.24-0.53]; visual-spatial: n = 9, SMD = 0.49, 95%CI[0.31-0.67]), but not other neuropsychological (e.g., attention, inhibition) or academic outcomes (e.g., reading, arithmetic; analysed n: 5-15). Longer-term improvement (at ~6-months) in verbal WM, reading comprehension, and ratings of executive functions were observed but relevant trials were limited in number (n: 5-7). There was no evidence that multi-process training was superior to working memory training. In sum, CCT led to shorter-term improvements in WM, with some evidence that verbal WM effects persisted in the longer-term. Clinical effects were limited to small, setting specific, short-term effects on inattention symptoms.