To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine in the treatment of adolescents with ADHD, comparing its effects with other available treatments. The primary outcome was the reduction of ADHD symptoms, and the secondary outcome was the occurrence of adverse effects.
Methods
A search was conducted in the Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. The research question and strategy were based on the PICO model. Inclusion criteria were restricted to studies involving children and adolescents aged 6–16 years, focusing on comparisons between atomoxetine and other treatments. Eligible studies were published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, with no restrictions on publication year. A total of 575 articles were initially retrieved. After removing duplicates, 527 references were screened by title and abstract, and 69 were selected for full-text review. Following this stage, 63 references were excluded, and 6 studies were ultimately deemed eligible.
Results
The six included studies involved a total of 905 participants. Atomoxetine demonstrated comparable efficacy to methylphenidate in reducing ADHD symptoms. The most common adverse effects were nausea, fatigue, and appetite changes. No severe adverse events were consistently reported. Atomoxetine's efficacy was particularly evident in patients who did not tolerate or respond to stimulant medications.
Conclusion
Available evidence suggests that atomoxetine is an effective and safe option for treating ADHD in adolescents, representing a valid alternative particularly for patients who do not tolerate stimulant medications. Continued research, especially long-term studies, is necessary to confirm its efficacy across different patient subgroups.
Systematic Review Registration
Identifier CRD420251152121.
ADHDadolescentsatomoxetinesafetyefficacypharmacological treatmentadverse effectsThe author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.section-at-acceptanceChild Mental Health and InterventionsIntroduction
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by persistent symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that impair academic, social, and emotional functioning. Studies conducted in Latin America have reported wide variability in the prevalence of ADHD across different populations, as described in the literature (1). In the United States, the prevalence is approximately 12% among children and adolescents (2).
The diagnosis of ADHD is based on clinical criteria established by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (3), which extended the age limit for symptom onset from 7 to 12 years, resulting in an adjusted prevalence rate of 10.84% (4). ADHD is recognized for its clinical heterogeneity and frequent comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, depression, and conduct disorders, making its therapeutic management particularly challenging.
ADHD treatment is multimodal, involving both pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. Stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, are considered first-line treatments due to their proven efficacy in reducing the core symptoms of the disorder (5). Methylphenidate, in particular, is widely used in children and adolescents and has been approved for use in children aged six years and older (6).
However, a significant proportion of patients present contraindications, intolerable side effects, or potential risk of misuse associated with stimulant use. In such cases, non-stimulant therapeutic alternatives such as atomoxetine become viable options. Atomoxetine is a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents aged six years and older (7). Unlike stimulants, atomoxetine has no significant abuse potential, making it a preferred choice for individuals with a history of substance use or psychiatric comorbidities (8, 9).
Several international clinical guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Pediatrics (10), recommend atomoxetine as a valid therapeutic option for ADHD treatment, particularly when stimulants are ineffective or contraindicated. Nonetheless, the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine compared with stimulants, particularly in adolescents, remain subjects of debate, as studies have reported varying results regarding the magnitude of clinical response and adverse effect profiles.
Therefore, the objective of this review was to systematically evaluate and summarize the available scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of atomoxetine in reducing ADHD symptoms in adolescents, as well as to investigate adverse events associated with its use compared with other therapeutic options. A critical analysis of the available evidence aims to support data-driven clinical decision-making and optimize ADHD management in this specific population.
Methods
The systematic literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under protocol number CRD420251152121, titled “Efficacy and Safety of Atomoxetine in the Treatment of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review”.
Search strategy
Searches were performed in the following electronic databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline, via PubMed), Web of Science, and EMBASE. The search strategies designed and used in each database are presented in Table 1. The initial search was conducted in November 2024 and updated in September 2025.
Strategies used in the electronic search.
Database
Search strategy
Results
Medline (PubMed)
(atomoxetine hydrochloride) OR (atomoxetine) AND (attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity) OR (ADHD) OR (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) AND (ADHD symptom reduction) AND (ADHD medications side effects).Filters applied: Randomized Controlled Trial, Child: birth- 18 years
198
EMBASE
(“atomoxetine OR “atomoxetin” OR “atomoxetine hydrochloride”) AND (“attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” OR ‘adhd’ OR ‘attention deficit OR ‘attention deficit and disruptive behavior disorders’ OR ‘attention deficit and disruptive behaviour disorders’ OR ‘attention deficit disorder’ OR ‘attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity’ AND (‘randomized controlled trial’ OR ‘controlled trial, randomized’ OR ‘randomised controlled study’ OR ‘randomized controlled study’.
336
Web of Science
(atomoxetine hydrochloride) OR (atomoxetine) AND (attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity) OR (ADHD) OR (attention deficit disorder) AND (randomized controlled trial) AND (children).
41
Total
–
575
The following descriptors were used: Children, ADHD medications, ADHD medications side effects, Atomoxetine, ADHD symptom reduction, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), as detailed and presented alongside the search strategy used in Medline via PubMed and adapted for the other databases (Table 1).
Research question
The research question and strategy used in this study were based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) model, commonly applied in evidence-based practice and recommended for systematic reviews.
Accordingly, adolescents with ADHD were considered the Population; studies involving the use of atomoxetine as treatment were designated as the Intervention; the Comparison involved other treatment modalities; and the Outcome was the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Thus, the final PICO question was: Is atomoxetine, compared with other treatments, effective in reducing ADHD symptoms in adolescents?
Eligibility criteria
Randomized controlled trials involving children aged 6–16 years were included. Only full-text articles published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were considered, with no publication year restrictions.
Exclusion criteria included: study designs other than randomized controlled trials; studies involving populations outside the defined age range; and studies that did not report relevant outcomes (efficacy or safety).
Study selection
Study selection was performed independently by one reviewer and conducted in two stages. In the first stage, titles and abstracts of references identified through the search strategy were screened, and potentially eligible studies were preselected. In the second stage, the full texts of preselected studies were reviewed to confirm eligibility. The selection process was conducted using the Rayyan platform (https://rayyan.qcri.org).
Included studies
After the selection process, six randomized controlled trials were included, comprising 905 participants aged 6–16 years. Although the PICO question aimed to compare the efficacy of atomoxetine with other treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents, the included studies predominantly compared atomoxetine with methylphenidate Although our eligibility criteria allowed the inclusion of trials comparing atomoxetine with any active pharmacological treatment, the search identified only randomized controlled trials using methylphenidate as the comparator among adolescents. Therefore, the exclusive presence of methylphenidate-controlled studies reflects the current state of the literature rather than a methodological restriction imposed by the review. And were conducted in China, Taiwan, Turkey, and India (11–16).
Data extraction
Standardized electronic forms were used for data extraction, which included methodological characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. The following study data were collected: authors, publication year, study design, sample size, methods, intervention protocol and control group (if applicable), evaluated outcomes, results, and conclusions.
Assessment of methodological quality
The methodological quality and/or risk of bias of the included studies were independently assessed using tools appropriate for each study design. For randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used. The risk-of-bias assessment for the randomized trials is summarized in Figure 1.
Risk of bias in randomized clinical trials, assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2). Adapted from Cochrane (17).
Flowchart of study identification and selection process. Initially, 575 records were identified from databases: EMBASE (336), MEDLINE/PubMed (198), Web of Science (41). After removing 48 duplicates, 527 records were screened by title/abstract, excluding 458. Full-text assessment was performed on 69 records, with 63 excluded due to age range (25), non-corresponding intervention (20), and unrelated outcome (18). Six studies were included in the review.ResultsSearch results
The database search retrieved a total of 575 records. After removing duplicates, 527 references remained for title and abstract screening, of which 69 met the PICO criteria and were selected for full-text assessment. Following full-text review, 63 articles were excluded due to discrepancies in population, interventions, or reported outcomes. Ultimately, six randomized controlled trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The study selection process is illustrated in Figure 2, and the characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 2.
Flowchart of the study selection process (PRISMA flow). Adapted from Page et al. (18).
Bar chart showing bias assessment categories, including randomization process, interventions' deviations, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and result selection. Colors indicate risk levels: green for low risk, yellow for some concerns, and red for high risk. Overall risk of bias shows some concerns.
Characteristics of included studies.
Study
Design
Participants
Intervention
Duration
Outcome
Results
(11)
RCT
84 children (6–14 years)
ATX vs. MPH
08 weeks
Improvement of symptoms assessed by VADTRS, VADPRS, and CGI-S
Both groups showed a significant reduction (≈25%). Adverse effects: atomoxetine – somnolence, nausea; methylphenidate – insomnia, loss of appetite.
(12)
RCT
160 children (7–16 years)
ATX vs. MPH
24 weeks
Reduction in CGI-ADHD-S and SNAP-IV scores
Average symptom reduction of ≈35% in both groups. No significant differences in overall efficacy. Methylphenidate associated with higher insomnia.
(13)
RCT
262 children (6–16 years)
ATX vs. MPH
08 weeks +1 year
Reduction in ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-ADHD-S scores, tolerability
30% reduction in both groups; lower adherence in the atomoxetine group (60% vs. 75%). Mild adverse effects: atomoxetine – nausea, somnolence; methylphenidate – insomnia, loss of appetite.
(14)
RCT
104 children (6–14 years)
ATX vs. MPH
08 weeks
Reduction in ADHD-RS-IV (Parent) scores, adverse effects
Average reduction of 28% in both groups. Adverse effect profile consistent with the literature; no serious events reported.
(15)
RCT
160 children (7–16 years)
ATX vs. MPH
24 weeks
Improvement of symptoms in CBCL, YSR, and SDQ scores
Overall symptom reduction ≈30%. Methylphenidate superior in reducing aggression and somatic complaints. Adverse effects: atomoxetine – somnolence and nausea; methylphenidate – insomnia and loss of appetite.
(16)
RCT
135 children (6–12 years)
ATX vs. MPH
18 weeks
Improvement in executive functions and reduction in CTRS scores
Average improvement of 30% in executive functions and ADHD symptoms in both groups. Mild adverse effects; no serious events.
The six included studies comprised a total sample of approximately 905 participants diagnosed with ADHD, aged between 6 and 16 years. Follow-up durations ranged from eight weeks to twelve months. All trials compared the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine with methylphenidate, in either its immediate-release or osmotic-release formulations. The main assessment scales used to measure outcomes were the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV), the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), ensuring standardization and comparability across studies.
In terms of efficacy, results showed that atomoxetine led to an average reduction of 25%–35% in ADHD symptom scores over 8–12 weeks, whereas methylphenidate yielded reductions of 30%–40% within the same period. However, most studies found no statistically significant differences between groups, indicating generally comparable efficacy, with only minor variations in specific domains. Two trials, however, reported modest advantages for methylphenidate: Shih et al. (15) observed greater efficacy in reducing aggression and somatic complaints, while Su et al. (13), in a one-year follow-up, found a sustained response rate of 62% for methylphenidate compared to 54% for atomoxetine. These findings suggest that although overall efficacy is equivalent, methylphenidate may show slightly superior performance in certain behavioral domains and with prolonged use.
Regarding safety and tolerability, adverse effect profiles differed between the medications. Methylphenidate was more commonly associated with insomnia (15%–25%), appetite loss (20%–30%), and weight reduction exceeding 2 kg within up to 12 weeks (10%–15%). In contrast, atomoxetine was more frequently linked to somnolence (10%–20%) and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting (15%–25%). Treatment discontinuation rates ranged from 12% to 18% for atomoxetine and 8%–15% for methylphenidate, generally due to adverse effects.
Overall, the findings indicate that atomoxetine demonstrates efficacy comparable to methylphenidate in reducing core ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents. However, methylphenidate, considered the first-line treatment by several international guidelines (5, 10), showed a modest advantage in certain behavioral outcomes and higher adherence during longer follow-up periods. Atomoxetine, in turn, stands out as a non-stimulant therapeutic alternative, particularly relevant for patients who cannot tolerate stimulants or have contraindications to their use.
Risk of bias assessment
Overall, according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2.0) tool, none of the studies exhibited a low risk of bias across all domains. Two clinical trials (11, 15) were rated as having a high overall risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding, reliance on subjective outcomes reported by parents, substantial loss to follow-up, and failure to apply intention-to-treat analysis in Garg et al. (11).
The remaining studies (12–14, 16) showed “some concerns” in at least one domain, mainly related to the absence of detailed information on allocation concealment, lack of blinding of participants and assessors, and notable sample attrition. Nonetheless, some studies adopted bias-mitigation strategies, such as intention-to-treat analysis (12–14) and the use of objective measures or teacher-reported outcomes (16), which reduced potential expectancy bias from participants or caregivers.
Regarding individual domains, a low risk of bias was generally observed in random sequence generation, although allocation concealment was not clearly described in several studies. Measurement of outcomes and missing data were the domains with the highest number of high-risk judgments due to subjective assessments by unblinded individuals and substantial attrition in some trials, particularly in Shih et al. (15).
In summary, most studies presented a moderate-to-high risk of bias, which must be taken into account when interpreting the results of this systematic review, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Discussion
The results of this systematic review, which synthesized six randomized clinical trials involving 905 children and adolescents with ADHD, demonstrate that atomoxetine is effective in reducing the core symptoms of the disorder, with overall performance comparable to that of methylphenidate. This consistency, observed across diverse geographic contexts (China, Taiwan, Turkey, and India), reinforces the external validity of the findings.
Although a meta-analysis was initially considered, substantial heterogeneity across the included trials precluded quantitative pooling. The studies used different ADHD symptom rating scales (e.g., ADHD-RS-IV, SNAP-IV, VADTRS), varied dosing strategies for both atomoxetine and methylphenidate, and reported incomplete summary statistics in several cases, particularly missing standard deviations required for effect-size calculation. Follow-up durations also varied considerably, ranging from 8 to 52 weeks, limiting comparability. For these reasons, a narrative synthesis was deemed the most methodologically appropriate approach.
In most studies, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two drugs, supporting their clinical equivalence in the short and medium term. Nonetheless, some nuances emerged: methylphenidate showed slightly greater benefits in behavioral outcomes such as reduced aggression and somatic complaints, as well as better adherence over longer follow-up. These findings suggest that while equivalence predominates, subtle differences may guide therapeutic choices in specific cases.
With respect to safety and tolerability, distinct adverse effect profiles were noted. Methylphenidate was more often associated with insomnia, appetite loss, and weight reduction, whereas atomoxetine was linked to somnolence and gastrointestinal symptoms. Nevertheless, none of the studies reported serious adverse events, reinforcing the overall safety of both treatments. Clinical decisions should therefore consider not only efficacy but also individual tolerability profiles and patient characteristics.
An important clinical aspect highlighted in the included trials is that, as a non-stimulant medication, atomoxetine offers specific advantages in ADHD management. Unlike methylphenidate, it has no abuse potential or risk of dependence, making it a safer option for vulnerable populations such as adolescents with a history of substance use. Moreover, several studies included in this review (11–16) emphasized that although its adverse event profile differs from that of methylphenidate, the absence of central stimulation provides benefits for patients with contraindications to stimulants, low tolerance, or heightened risk of insomnia, weight loss, and anxiety symptoms. Thus, atomoxetine represents not only an effective therapeutic alternative but also a strategic option in specific clinical scenarios.
From a clinical standpoint, atomoxetine may be particularly advantageous in certain subgroups. It is considered a preferred option for adolescents with comorbid anxiety disorders, a history of substance misuse or increased risk of stimulant diversion, prominent sleep disturbances, low tolerance to appetite suppression or weight loss, or the presence of motor tics. These scenarios highlight situations in which a non-stimulant profile offers meaningful benefits beyond symptom reduction alone.
Among the limitations of this review are the methodological heterogeneity of the included trials, lack of blinding in some studies, and reliance on caregiver-reported outcomes, which increases the risk of bias. In addition, most studies assessed only short- to medium-term outcomes (8–24 weeks), limiting conclusions about long-term use.
The interpretation of the findings must therefore be viewed in light of these methodological weaknesses. Several trials lacked blinding of participants and outcome assessors, which increases the likelihood of expectancy bias, particularly because many primary outcomes relied on parent-reported symptom scales. In addition, incomplete reporting of allocation concealment in most studies may introduce selection bias, while substantial attrition in two trials raises concerns regarding the robustness and stability of group comparisons. Consequently, although the overall pattern of results indicates comparable efficacy between atomoxetine and methylphenidate, the certainty of this evidence remains moderate at best.
In summary, atomoxetine constitutes an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of ADHD in young individuals. However, further clinical trials with more rigorous methodologies, larger samples, and longer follow-up periods are needed to consolidate its therapeutic role.
Conclusion
Evidence from the randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review suggests that atomoxetine is an effective and safe option for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, demonstrating overall efficacy comparable to methylphenidate, though with notable differences in tolerability profiles. While methylphenidate was more frequently associated with insomnia and weight loss, atomoxetine presented higher rates of somnolence and gastrointestinal symptoms.
In this context, atomoxetine represents a valid therapeutic alternative, particularly for young individuals with contraindications, poor response, or intolerance to stimulants. Nonetheless, treatment selection should always be individualized, taking into account the patient's clinical profile, comorbidities, and tolerability.
Despite the consistency of findings, this review identified methodological limitations in the evaluated studies, particularly concerning bias risk due to lack of blinding and the predominance of subjective outcomes. Therefore, further randomized clinical trials with larger samples, longer follow-up periods, and stricter methodological rigor are warranted to strengthen the evidence base and better guide clinical practice in managing ADHD in children and adolescents.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
This work is part of the requirements for completion of the Medical Degree program.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
ReferencesVélez-CalvoXTárraga-MínguezRRoa-LópezHMPeñaherrera-VélezMJ. Prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptomatology in Ecuadorian schoolchildren (aged 6–11). J Res Spec Educ Need. (2024) 24:429–31. 10.1111/1471-3802.12642Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data and statistics on ADHD. (2025). Available online at:https://www.cdc.gov/adhd/data/index.html(Accessed September 20, 2025)American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed.Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing (2013).Vande VoortJLHeJPJamesonNDMerikangasKRBursteinMGreenJGImpact of the DSM-5 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Criteria on Prevalence Estimates: A Population-based study. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing (2014).National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Diagnosis and management. (2022). Available online at:https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng87(Accessed September 20, 2025)Mayo Clinic. Atomoxetine (oral route)—Side effects & dosage. (2025). Available online at:https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/atomoxetine-oral-route/description/drg-20066904(Accessed September 20, 2025)FedderDPatelHSaadabadiA. Atomoxetine. In: StatPearls Publishing Editorial Team, editor. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2023). Available online at:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493234/(Accessed September 20, 2025)UpadhyayaHPDesaiahDSchuhLMBabcockTKupperRJBramsMA review of the abuse potential assessment of atomoxetine: a nonstimulant treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychopharmacology. (2013) 226(2):189–200. 10.1007/s00213-012-2916-723397050CaiYWangJZhangLWangLWuXJiangZThe mechanism, clinical efficacy, safety, and dosage regimen of atomoxetine for ADHD therapy in children: a narrative review. Front Psychiatry. (2022) 12:780921. 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.78092135222104American Academy of Pediatrics. ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. (2019) 144(4):e20192528. 10.1542/peds.2019-252831570648GargJArunPChavanBS. Comparative short-term efficacy and tolerability of methylphenidate and atomoxetine in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Indian Pediatr. (2014). 10.1007/s13312-014-0445-5ShangC-YChouT-LGauSS-FLeeT-WHsuY-YGauSS-FAn open-label, randomized trial of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. (2015) 25(7):566–573. 10.1089/cap.2015.003526222447SuYChenJLinCHsuJWangJTsouTOsmotic release oral system methylphenidate versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Chinese youth: 8-week comparative efficacy and 1-year follow-up. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. (2016) 26(4):362–371. 10.1089/cap.2015.003126779845ZhuXGuoJLiYZengZYangLHuangFA randomized parallel-controlled study of curative effect and safety of atomoxetine and methylphenidate in treatment of ADHD in children. (2017).ShihH-HShangC-YGauSS-F. Comparative efficacy of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on emotional and behavioral problems in youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. (2019) 29(1):9–19. 10.1089/cap.2018.007630457349Tag TorunYEvrenCYıldırımHAydınATuranRBaşayÖOsmotic release oral system-methylphenidate hydrochloride (OROS-MPH) versus atomoxetine on executive function improvement and clinical effectiveness in ADHD: a randomized controlled trial. Appl Neuropsychol Child. (2022) 11(4):567–578. 10.1080/21622965.2020.179666732757634Cochrane. ROB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. (2025). Available online at:https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool(Accessed September 20, 2025)PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCDThe PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. (2021) 372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71
Edited by: Federico Amianto, University of Turin, Italy
Reviewed by: Nasser M. Alorfi, Umm Al Qura University, Saudi Arabia
Jamuna Das, Siksha O. Anusandhan University, India