Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common psychiatric conditions affecting children and adolescents. Amphetamines are among the most commonly prescribed medications to manage ADHD. There are three main classes of amphetamines: dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine and mixed amphetamine salts, which can be further broken down into short- and long-acting formulations. A systematic review assessing their efficacy and safety in this population has never been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for ADHD in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: In August 2015 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified by the searches. No language or date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amphetamine derivatives against placebo in a pediatric population (< 18 years) with ADHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data on participants, settings, interventions, methodology, and outcomes for each included study. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and for dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR). Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We also performed a meta-analysis of the most commonly reported adverse events in the primary studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 trials (8 parallel-group and 15 cross-over trials), with 2675 children aged three years to 17 years. All studies compared amphetamines to placebo. Study durations ranged from 14 days to 365 days, with the majority lasting less than six months. Most studies were conducted in the United States; three studies were conducted across Europe. We judged 11 included studies to be at a high risk of bias due to insufficient blinding methods, failing to account for dropouts and exclusions from the analysis, and failing to report on all outcomes defined a priori. We judged the remaining 12 studies to be at unclear risk of bias due to inadequate reporting.Amphetamines improved total ADHD core symptom severity according to parent ratings (SMD -0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.86 to -0.27; 7 studies; 1247 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence), teacher ratings (SMD -0.55; 95% CI -0.83 to -0.27; 5 studies; 745 children/adolescents; low quality evidence), and clinician ratings (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.36; 3 studies; 813 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence). In addition, the proportion of responders as rated by the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) scale was higher when children were taking amphetamines (RR 3.36; 95% CI 2.48 to 4.55; 9 studies; 2207 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence).The most commonly reported adverse events included decreased appetite, insomnia/trouble sleeping, abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, headaches, and anxiety. Amphetamines were associated with a higher proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite (RR 6.31; 95% CI 2.58 to 15.46; 11 studies; 2467 children/adolescents), insomnia (RR 3.80; 95% CI 2.12 to 6.83; 10 studies; 2429 children/adolescents), and abdominal pain (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.00; 10 studies; 2155 children/adolescents). In addition, the proportion of children who experienced at least one adverse event was higher in the amphetamine group (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.44; 6 studies; 1742 children/adolescents; low quality evidence).We performed subgroup analyses for amphetamine preparation (dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts), amphetamine release formulation (long acting versus short acting), and funding source (industry versus non industry). Between-group differences were observed for proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite in both the amphetamine preparation (P < 0.00001) and amphetamine release formulation (P value = 0.008) subgroups, as well as for retention in the amphetamine release formulation subgroup (P value = 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low on most outcomes. Although amphetamines seem efficacious at reducing the core symptoms of ADHD in the short term, they were associated with a number of adverse events. This review found no evidence that supports any one amphetamine derivative over another, and does not reveal any differences between long-acting and short-acting amphetamine preparations. Future trials should be longer in duration (i.e. more than 12 months), include more psychosocial outcomes (e.g. quality of life and parent stress), and be transparently reported.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The efficacy and safety of ADHD medications remains controversial.
“However, even though recommended in clinical guidelines,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 the efficacy and safety of ADHD medications remains controversial.15, 16, 17”
From Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [16]
The review’s “Why it is important to do this review” section calls psychostimulant use a major controversy in ADHD treatment. Its authors’ conclusions report short-term benefit from amphetamines alongside adverse events and limited long-term evidence. The cited review concerns amphetamines in children and adolescents, so it does not establish the claim for all ADHD medications. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhereas previous pairwise or network meta-analyses of ADHD medications rated all comparisons as low or very low quality, we could rate some comparisons as high or moderate quality.
“Whereas previous pairwise16, 51 or network meta-analyses19 of ADHD medications rated all comparisons as low or very low quality, attributable in part to unpublished information that we gathered and a more nuanced assessment, we could rate some comparisons as high or moderate quality.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 103 · Cited by 122
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis in Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1988.
- Conners 1998a Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JDA, Epstein JN. The revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1998;26(4):257-68.
- Conners 1998b Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JDA, Epstein JN. Revision and restandardization of the Conners Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS- R): factor structure, reliability and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1998;26(4):279-91.
- Costello EJ, Edelbrock CS, Costello AJ. Validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: a comparison between psychiatric and pediatric referrals. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1985;13(4):579-95.
- Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane- handbook.org.
- DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998:186-201.
- Edwards L, Salant V, Howard VF, Brougher J, McLaughlin TF. Effectiveness of self-management on attentional behavior and reading comprehension for children with attention deficit disorder. Child and Family Behavior Therapy 1995;17(2):1-17. [DOI: 10.1300/J019v17n02_01] · DOI
- Egger M, Zellwenger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomized controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350(9074):329-9. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7] · DOI · Paper page
- Follman D, Elliott P, Suh II, Cutler J. Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992;45(7):769-73. [DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-Q] · DOI
- GRADE Working Group 2004 GRADE Working Group. Education and debate: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490-9. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490] · DOI · Paper page
- Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. [PUBMED: 12958120]
- Higgins 2011a Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane- handbook.org.
- Higgins 2011b Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2] References to other published versions of this review Punja 2012 · DOI · Paper page
- Punja S, Shamseer L, Hartling L, Urichuk L, Vandermeer B, Nikles CJ, et al. Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009996] · DOI
- D E C L A R A T I O N S O F I N T E R E S T Salima Punja -none known. Larissa Shamseer -none known. Lisa Hartling -none known. Liana Urichuk -received salary support from the Addiction & Mental Health Program of Alberta Health Services -Edmonton Zone during the course of this review. Dr Urichuk also received a grant for a research project entitled "Neurofeedback for children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" from the Sick Kids Hospital Foundation and John and Lotte Hecht Memorial Foundation.
- Sunita Vohra -is the recipient of an Alberta Innovates -Health Scholar salary award. Dr Vohra's institution receives funds from Alberta Innovates -Health Solutions and protects 75% of her time for research. Other funders include Health Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Women & Children's Health Research Institute and National Health, Medical Research Council (Australia) and SERIN-ETD Acupuncture Research Fund. SERIN is a commercial entity who provided acupuncture needles for a trial. The population is not pediatric ADHD. None of these companies pose a conflict of interest as regards this review.
- Authors
- Punja, S., Shamseer, L., Hartling, L., Urichuk, L., Vandermeer, B., Nikles, J., & Vohra, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
- Alberta Health Services (CA)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-02-04
- Volume
- 2016
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- CD009996-CD009996
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- PMC
- PMC10329868
- OpenAlex
- W1519950850
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 103
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, amphetamine, d-amphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts, stimulant medication, children and adolescents, ADHD symptom severity, adverse events, treatment efficacy and safety, placebo comparison, risk of bias, parent and teacher ratings, crossover trial, long-acting formulations
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Amphetamines, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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