Systematic narrative review workflow
The review follows a reproducible sequence: database search, eligibility screening, and standardized data extraction, anchored to ADHD diagnosis, medication exposure, and emotional or functional outcomes.
Review Pipeline
Four stages from search to extraction
Study Design
The thesis used a systematic narrative review design to integrate heterogeneous evidence while preserving study-level nuance.
Literature Search
- Databases: PubMed, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar.
- Search concepts: ADHD, emotional dysregulation, functional outcomes, stimulants, and atomoxetine.
- English-language studies only, searched through January 2026.
Eligibility Criteria
- Required an ADHD diagnosis.
- Evaluated stimulants and/or atomoxetine.
- Reported emotional dysregulation and/or functional capacity, quality of life, or academic functioning.
- Included original research articles only.
Data Extraction
- Zotero was used for record management.
- Title and abstract screening was followed by full-text review.
- A standardized extraction form captured study type, age group, treatment, outcomes, and results.
- The review was performed by a single reviewer.
Eligibility Matrix
Inclusion and exclusion logic
| Criterion | Decision | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| ADHD diagnosis | Included | Studies had to involve participants with ADHD. |
| Medication exposure | Included | Studies evaluating stimulants and/or atomoxetine were eligible. |
| Outcome scope | Included | Emotional dysregulation, functional capacity, quality of life, or academic functioning had to be assessed. |
| Study design | Included | Original research articles only. |
| Meta-analyses and systematic reviews | Excluded | Excluded to keep the review focused on primary evidence. |
| Language | Excluded | Non-English papers were excluded. |
| Full-text availability | Excluded | Articles without accessible full text were excluded. |