This review looked at 14 randomized studies of neurofeedback in young people with ADHD. Six were published and eight were unpublished conference talks. Most were done from 1994 to 2010 in 5- to 15-year-olds. The children were usually male and White, with combined-type ADHD.
Most studies trained a brain wave pattern called theta/beta, using a single electrode at a site called Cz. Where results were reported, the overall benefit for ADHD was medium in size. Using APA efficacy guidelines, the authors judged neurofeedback for children with ADHD "probably efficacious."
The authors also listed many weaknesses in the studies. Just over half (57%) used some form of blinding. Only two checked whether the blinding worked, and both found it fell short. In one of them, all of the trainers (100%) could tell which treatment a child got. No study used a valid fake version of neurofeedback with full triple blinding. So the benefit could come from neurofeedback itself, from factors not specific to it, from a mix of both, or from the gap between neurofeedback and a weaker comparison treatment.
Most studies (86%) noted other medication, but only four (29%) tracked changes in it. Just three studies checked on children after treatment ended. Only one measured side effects, and it found none. Methods also varied widely, from 18 to 40 sessions over 2 to 24 weeks.
The numbers Stats and what the terms mean
The statistics behind the plain-language claims above.
- Lofthouse, 2011: the overall average benefit on ADHD measures, across studies that reported it, d = 0.69. What the terms mean:
- d shows how big the difference between groups was. Roughly, 0.2 is small, 0.5 is moderate and 0.8 is large. A minus sign shows the direction of the change, not its size.
Source: Lofthouse N, Arnold L, Hersch S, et al.. A Review of Neurofeedback Treatment for Pediatric ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders (2011). doi:10.1177/1087054711427530