NUMBER 1

CONTROVERSIAL ADHD TREATMENTS
 

Sam Goldstein, Ph.D. is a clinical neuropsychologist and has authored over 100 scholarly publications, including eighteen texts, book chapters, peer reviewed research and informational articles for parents and professionals has discussed in a recent article from Schwablearning.com controversial ADHD treatments.

He states, "Great strides have been made in understanding and managing this common childhood disorder. Children with AD/HD who would have gone unrecognized and untreated only a few short years ago are now being helped, often with dramatic, positive results."

He shares how evaluations that consist of a single checklist or ten minute discussions, will likely run the risk of mis-diagnosis of the disorder, and a misunderstanding of co- occurring problems as symptoms of inattention, restlessness, impulsivity, social and academic difficulties, can reflect a variety of childhood disorders.

ChildD would like to inform parents seeking to help their children with ADHD with marketed treatments that have not been supported by the professionals in the field of Education.  Parents can turn to treatments, which claim to be useful with children with ADHD, but which have not demonstrated effectiveness with the standards held by the scientific and educational professionals.  These treatments are defined as controversial. Many parents do not have the expertise to recognize it's ineffectiveness and often time spend thousands of dollars in the mere hope that it will make life better for their child.

How to determine if a treatment is proven by scientific research?

There will be documented publications from reputable sources and resources.  Any self-publication should raise a  "red flag" of concern.  When asking for proof to support the treatment claims… if the proponents are unable to provide scientific documentation, and support by the medical community at large, the treatment will remain controversial.

DIET INTERVENTION:

Although dietary interventions are popular, few studies have reported success and for most of these, statistical problems abound.  However, A few well-designed studies have found some effects of sugar on behavior but these effects are very small and only a small percentage of children with AD/HD appear vulnerable. Presently, there has not been evidence to indicate that dietary interventions offer significant help for children with learning and attention problems.

MEGAVITAMINS AND MINERAL SUPPLEMENTS:

Vitamins are synonymous with health; there is a lack of scientific evidence to support that they exert a significant difference in the lives of children with AD/HD. Although these substances are natural which lends an aura of safety, excessive use of these substances can in fact cause health problems.

ANTI-MOTION SICKNESS MEDICINE:

Advocates of this theory believe that AD/HD is caused by problems in the inner ear system. Unfortunately, these results are unpublished and not subject to verification. This theory is not consistent with what is currently known about AD/HD. There is no body of research that supports a link between the inner ear system and attention processes. In the single controlled study of this theory, researchers evaluated the use of anti-motion sickness medication to treat developmental reading disorders. The results failed to support the theory. This approach to treating AD/HD is inconsistent with current knowledge and is not supported by research findings.

EEG BIOFEEDBACK:

Proponents of this approach believe that children with AD/HD can be trained to increase the type of brainwave activity associated with sustained attention and to decrease the type of activity associated with daydreaming and distraction. They claim the result is improvement in attention and reductions in hyperactivity and impulsivity.

Although this treatment has become quite popular, there continues to be limited, published peer reviewed research to support its use.

OTHER CONTROVERSIAL TREATMENTS

Among other treatments that parents may hear about on the radio, view on television, or read about are the use of applied kinesiology (the manipulation of bones in the body, particularly plates of the skull to improve body and brain functioning), optometric vision training (exercises to improve eye tracking) and auditory training (enhancing the capacity to listen to and process certain frequencies of sounds). All three of these approaches have been marketed as effective for AD/HD. However, there is limited if any scientific support that any of these three will exert a significant, positive impact on the functioning of children with AD/HD.

Summary:

In this paper we have reviewed approaches which have been offered as effective for AD/HD which have not met scientific standards which would justify their inclusion as mainstream treatments for this childhood disorder. Some of these controversial treatments merit continued research while others likely do not. Although these treatments may be offered in the marketplace as proven and accepted approaches, they are not. Parents are cautioned when considering these treatments that time and money might be better spent on treatments with proven track records.

Among the most effective means to date are the judicious uses of medication and behavior management. Parent education and appropriate classroom settings, as well as helping children locate areas of success in their lives, are also effective for children with AD/HD.

·         Overstatement and exaggerated claims are red flags. Be suspicious of any product or treatment that is described as astonishing, miraculous or an amazing breakthrough. Legitimate health professionals do not use words like these. Nor do they boast of their success in treating huge numbers of patients.

·         Be suspicious too of any treatment that claims to treat a wide variety of ailments. Common sense tells us that the more grandiose the claim the less likely it is that there is any real merit behind it.

·         Do not rely on testimonials from people who say they have been helped by the product or the treatment. Enthusiasm is not a substitute for evidence and legitimate health professionals do not solicit testimonials from their patients.

·         Be skeptical about claims that a treatment is being suppressed or unfairly attacked by the medical establishment. Legitimate health professionals eagerly welcome new knowledge and better methods of treatment for their patients. They have no reason to oppose promising new approaches.

This article originally appeared on Dr. Sam Goldstein's website in 2000, samgoldstein.com.

Return