Cited by 99Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Outcomes of OROS® methylphenidate compared with atomoxetine in children with ADHD: A multicenter, randomized prospective study

Kemner, Jason E., Starr, H. Lynn, Ciccone, Patrick E., Hooper-Wood, Christa G., Crockett, R. Steve·2005·Advances in Therapy

Abstract

This community-based study was designed to evaluate treatment outcomes with OROS methylphenidate (MPH) and atomoxetine in children with attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as assessed by physicians and parents in a setting that resembles clinical practice. In a multicenter, prospective, open-label study, children 6 to 12 years of age with ADHD were randomized (2:1, respectively) to 3 weeks of treatment with once-daily OROS MPH or atomoxetine. Investigatorrated measures of symptoms included the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement of Illness scale (CGI-I). Assessments were made at baseline and during a telephone interview in week 1, a clinic visit in week 2, and a final clinic visit in week 3. In total, 1323 patients received OROS MPH (n = 850) or atomoxetine (n = 473). Significant reductions from baseline in investigator-evaluated ADHD-RS scores were observed among patients receiving OROS MPH and those receiving atomoxetine. At the end of the study, mean decreases from baseline ADHD-RS scores were 20.24 for OROS MPH and 16 for atomoxetine (P < .001). Between-treatment differences appeared to increase over time (2.77, 3.44, and 4.24 at weeks 1, 2, and 3, respectively; P < .001). Treatment response (ie, 25% reduction from baseline ADHD-RS scores) was significantly greater at each evaluation for patients taking OROS MPH than for those taking atomoxetine (P < .001). Similar percentages of patients taking OROS MPH (4.8%) and atomoxetine (5.5%) withdrew because of adverse events. Although community-based studies often lack the control of randomized, placebo-controlled trials, these results nevertheless suggest greater ADHD symptom improvement with OROS MPH compared with atomoxetine.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02849870

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kemner, J. E., Starr, H. L., Ciccone, P. E., Hooper-Wood, C. G., & Crockett, R. S.
Venue
Advances in Therapy
Published
2005-09
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
498-512
ISSN
  • 0741-238X (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-8652
OpenAlex
W1973632776
Cited by
99
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Therapy (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, OROS methylphenidate, atomoxetine, children, ADHD symptom improvement, treatment response, ADHD Rating Scale, adverse events, community-based treatment
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Propylamines, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome

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