OSU Navigation Bar

The Ohio State University University Libraries Knowledge Bank

Evidence, Interpretation, and Qualification From Multiple Reports of Long- Term Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD (MTA), Part I: Executive Summary

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/51585

Show full item record

Files Size Format View
fac_ArnoldE_JAttentionDis_2008_12_1_Part_1.pdf 56.91Kb PDF View/Open

Title: Evidence, Interpretation, and Qualification From Multiple Reports of Long- Term Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD (MTA), Part I: Executive Summary
Creators: Swanson, James; Arnold, L. Eugene; Kraemer, Helena; Hechtman, Lily; Molina, Brooke; Hinshaw, Stephen; Vitiello, Benedetto; Jensen, Peter; Steinhoff, Ken; Lerner, Marc; Greenhill, Laurence; Abikoff, Howard; Wells, Karen; Epstein, Jeffery; Elliott, Glen; Newcorn, Jeffrey; Hoza, Betsy; Wigal, Timothy
Issue Date: 2008
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd.
Citation: James Swanson et al, "Evidence, Interpretation, and Qualification From Multiple Reports of Long- Term Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD (MTA), Part I: Executive Summary," Journal of Attention Disorders 12, no. 1 (2008), doi:10.1177/1087054708319345
DOI: 10.1177/1087054708319345
arnold.6@osu.edu
Abstract: Objective: To review the primary and secondary findings from the Multimodal Treatment study of ADHD (MTA) published over the past decade as three sets of articles. Method: In a two-part article—Part I: Executive Summary (without distracting details) and Part II: Supporting Details (with additional background and detail required by the complexity of the MTA)—we address confusion and controversy about the findings. Results: We discuss the basic features of the gold standard used to produce scientific evidence, the randomized clinical trial, for which was used to contrast four treatment conditions: medication management alone (MedMgt), behavior therapy alone (Beh), the combination of these two (Comb), and a community comparison of treatment “as usual” (CC). For each of the three assessment points we review three areas that we believe are important for appreciation of the findings: definition of evidence from the MTA, interpretation of the serial presentations of findings at each assessment point with a different definition of long-term, and qualification of the interim conclusions about long-term effects of treatments for ADHD. Conclusion: We discuss the possible clinical relevance of the MTA and present some practical suggestions based on current knowledge and uncertainties facing families, clinicians, and investigators regarding the long-term use of stimulant medication and behavioral therapy in the treatment of children with ADHD. (J. of Att. Dis. 2008; 12(1) 4-14)
ISSN: 1087-0547
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/51585
Rights: © 2008 Sage Publications Ltd.
Bookmark and Share