Background Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by attention problems, excessive physical activity, and impulsivity. ADHD affects not only the patients but also their families. The development and use of technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) for ADHD has increased over recent years. However, little is known about their potential usefulness. This overview aimed to clarify the current knowledge about the use of these three innovative technologies for the diagnosis and treatment of children with ADHD. Methods This overview was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until January 24th, 2021. The following descriptive information was compiled from the identified studies: country, year of publication, sample size, study design, ADHD diagnosis methods, applied technology, hardware equipment, clinical target, and main findings. Results The initial database searches yielded 409 articles, but 103 were removed as duplicates. Eventually, 30 eligible studies remained for analysis, the majority of which were case-control (n = 22, 73%). Regarding the applied technology/hardware equipment, VR (n = 27; 90%), head-mounted displays (n = 19, 63%), VR-based continuous performance tests (VR-CPT) (n = 21, 70%) were most frequently used. Most studies (n = 21, 70%) used the DSM criteria for the diagnosis of childhood ADHD. They primarily evaluated the utility of these technologies in assessing ADHD symptoms (n = 10, 33%) and improving the ADHD diagnostic process (n = 7, 23%). Conclusion This comprehensive overview evaluated the studies on the use of VR, AR, and MR technologies for children with ADHD. These technologies seem to be promising tools for improving the diagnosis and management of ADHD in this population.

Background: Although the systematic reviews regarding telemedicine have increased in recent decades, no comprehensive studies have been conducted to review these systematic reviews. The present study aimed to review the published systematic reviews regarding telemedicine applications for the report and appraisal of several aspects. Methods: The literature search was performed in the PubMed database for the systematic reviews published during January 2010-June 2020 in the field of telemedicine using “telemedicine” Mesh terms. The extracted data from the selected articles were the year of publication, telemedicine specialty, clinical outcomes, cost evaluation, and satisfaction assessment. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics. Results: Among 746 retrieved articles, 191 cases were selected and reviewed. Most of the studies were focused on telemedicine (n=35; 18.3%), followed by telerehabilitation (n=22; 11.5%), tele-diabetes (n=18; 9.4%), telecardiology (n=16; 8.3%), home telecare (n=13; 6.8%), telepsychiatry (n=12; 6.3%), teledermatology (n=11; 5.7%), and teleneurology (n=9; 4.7%). The selected studies were primarily focused on clinical outcomes (72.7%), followed by cost-effectiveness (32.4%) and user satisfaction (29.3%). In addition, they mostly indicated that telemedicine services yielded acceptable clinical outcomes (72.5%), cost-effectiveness (67.7%), and healthcare provider/patient satisfaction (83.9%). Conclusion: Although telerehabilitation, tele-diabetes, telecardiology, home telecare, and telepsychiatry were studied further, there are still some specific specialties such as teleradiology, telepathology, and telepediatric that should be considered more. Moreover, investigation of various outcomes could result in a more comprehensive view of this field. Therefore, further investigations in this regard would improve telemedicine applications and encourage potential telemedicine providers to initiate these applications.