Cited by 145Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Diet and ADHD, Reviewing the Evidence: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Diet Interventions on the Behavior of Children with ADHD

Open access
Pelsser, Lidy M., Frankena, Klaas, Toorman, Jan, Rodrigues Pereira, Rob·2017·PLOS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a debilitating mental health problem hampering the child's development. The underlying causes include both genetic and environmental factors and may differ between individuals. The efficacy of diet treatments in ADHD was recently evaluated in three reviews, reporting divergent and confusing conclusions based on heterogeneous studies and subjects. To address this inconsistency we conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses of double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of diet interventions (elimination and supplementation) on ADHD. METHODS: Our literature search resulted in 14 meta-analyses, six of which confined to double-blind placebo-controlled trials applying homogeneous diet interventions, i.e. artificial food color (AFC) elimination, a few-foods diet (FFD) and poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation. Effect sizes (ES) and Confidence intervals (CI) of study outcomes were depicted in a forest plot. I2 was calculated to assess heterogeneity if necessary and additional random effects subgroup meta-regression was conducted if substantial heterogeneity was present. RESULTS: The AFC ESs were 0.44 (95% CI: 0.16-0.72, I2 = 11%) and 0.21 (95% CI: -0.02-0.43, I2 = 68%) [parent ratings], 0.08 (95% CI: -0.07-0.24, I2 = 0%) [teacher ratings] and 0.11 (95% CI: -0.13-0.34, I2 = 12%) [observer ratings]. The FFD ESs were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.41-1.19, I2 = 61%) [parent ratings] and 0.51 (95% CI: -0.02-1.04, I2 = 72%) [other ratings], while the PUFA ESs were 0.17 (95% CI: -0.03-0.38, I2 = 38%) [parent ratings], -0.05 (95% CI: -0.27-0.18, I2 = 0%) [teacher ratings] and 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01-0.31, I2 = 0%) [parent and teacher ratings]. Three meta-analyses (two FFD and one AFC) resulted in high I2 without presenting subgroup results. The FFD meta-analyses provided sufficient data to perform subgroup analyses on intervention type, resulting in a decrease of heterogeneity to 0% (diet design) and 37.8% (challenge design). CONCLUSION: Considering the small average ESs PUFA supplementation is unlikely to provide a tangible contribution to ADHD treatment, while further research is required for AFC elimination before advising this intervention as ADHD treatment. The average FFD ES is substantial, offering treatment opportunities in subgroups of children with ADHD not responding to or too young for medication. Further FFD research should focus on establishing the underlying mechanisms of food (e.g. incrimination of gut microbiota) to simplify the FFD approach in children with 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0169277

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Few-foods diets have significant positive effects on ADHD symptoms (any-rater SMD=0.75, 95% CI 0.31-1.19; parent/ward observation SMD=0.78, 95% CI 0.42-1.14).

    “The recalculated meta-analyses found moderately large effect sizes in RCTs of the few-foods diets for any-rater measures (n=5, SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.31-1.19, I²=58.6%) and parent/ward observation measures (n=5, SMD=0.78, 95% CI: 0.42-1.14, I²=48.5%) of ADHD symptoms 78 .”

    From A meta-review of "lifestyle psychiatry": the role of exercise, smoking, diet and sleep in the prevention and treatment of mental disorders (2020) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Results (page unavailable) report a positive few-foods-diet effect for parent ratings and describe recalculations of five-study meta-analyses; the Discussion reports an overall I² of 58.6% for one recalculation. But the available text does not state the cited SMDs of 0.75 and 0.78 or their confidence intervals. Its explicitly reported estimates are 0.80 (95% CI 0.41–1.19) for parent ratings and 0.51 (95% CI −0.02–1.04) for other ratings, so the precise numerical claim is not verified. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AFC elimination shows non-significant trend towards improvement in ADHD symptoms on parent-rated measures (SMD=0.21, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.43).

    “The results from meta-analyses of placebo-controlled trials indicated a non-significant trend towards improvement in symptoms of ADHD from AFC elimination across parent-rated measures (n=11, SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.43, I²=68%, p=0.07)”
  • No effects of AFC elimination for teacher-rated and observed-rated measures of ADHD symptoms.

    “with no effects for teacher-rated measures (n=6, SMD=0.08, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.24, I²=0%) and observed-rated measures (n=4, SMD=0.11, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.34, I²=12%) 78 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 135 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [16]NICE. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management of ADHD in children, young people and adults: Leicester (UK): British Psychological Society; 2009. 22420012
  2. [122]Jensen CM, Steinhausen HC. Comorbid mental disorders in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a large nationwide study. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2015; 7(1): 27– 38. 10.1007/s12402-014-0142-1 24942707 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pelsser, L. M., Frankena, K., Toorman, J., & Rodrigues Pereira, R.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
Corresponding author
Pelsser, Lidy M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-01-25
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
e0169277
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2581553063
Cited by
145
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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, dietary intervention, omega-3 fatty acids, omega-6 fatty acids, n-6/n-3 ratio, child behavior, parent ratings, teacher ratings, effect size heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Problem Behavior, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child Behavior, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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