Restriction and Elimination Diets in ADHD Treatment
Open accessAbstract
Food elimination diets are defined and the history of their investigation in relation to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is reviewed. After noting that a consensus has emerged that an elimination diet produces a small but reliable aggregate effect, the present review provides updated quantitative estimates of effect size and clinical response rates to elimination diets. It then highlights key issues that require research attention, in particular characterization of dietary responders. Finally, because some children may benefit, clinical guidelines at the present state of knowledge are summarized. It is concluded that updated trials of elimination diets are sorely needed for ADHD.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Exclusion diets - those generally targeting artificial additives and those addressing idiosyncratic intolerances - also demonstrated positive effects, but these were, on average, very small (when blinded measures were used) or predominantly in a subgroup of patients with known food intolerances.
“exclusion diets - those generally targeting artificial additives and those addressing idiosyncratic intolerances - also demonstrated positive effects, but these were, on average, very small (when blinded measures were used) or predominantly in a s ubgroup of patients with known foodintolerances 193,194 .”
From Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (2015) · cites this paper as [194]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 67 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Nigg, J. T., & Holton, K.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- American University (US)
- Venue
- Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 937-953
- ISSN
- 1056-4993 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4322780
- OpenAlex
- W2009195272
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 0.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH059105)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, elimination diet, dietary intervention, effect size, clinical response rate, children, clinical guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Humans, Nutrition Therapy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
