Cited by 33Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Reboxetine versus methylphenidate in treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder

Arabgol, Fariba, Panaghi, Leily, Hebrani, Paria·2009·European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and purpose Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric diagnosis among children and adolescents. This study has been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine in comparison with methylphenidate in treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD.Methods Thirty three children, 7-16 years of age, diagnosed with ADHD, participated in a 6-week, double-blind clinical trial with reboxetine (4-6 mg/d) and methylphenidate (20-50 mg/d) in two divided doses. The principal measure of the outcome was the Teacher and Parent ADHD Rating Scale. Patients were assessed by a child psychiatrist at baseline, 14, 28, and 42 days after the start of medication.Results No significant differences were observed between the two protocols on the Parent (P = 0.26) and Teacher (P = 0.97) ADHD Rating Scale scores and in treatment dropouts. A significant improvement in ADHD symptoms was observed over the 6 weeks of treatment for Parent ADHD Rating Scale (P < 0.001) and Teacher ADHD Rating Scale score in both groups (P < 0.001). The most common adverse effects reported with reboxetine were drowsiness and anorexia with mild to moderate severity.Conclusions The study revealed that reboxetine may be beneficial in treatment of ADHD. Further studies are required to clarify the potential therapeutic effects on comorbid depression and anxiety and adverse effect profile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00787-008-0705-9

Cites

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?

  • Modafinil and reboxetine have both shown some promise in the treatment of ADHD.

    “Modafinil [73] and reboxetine [74,75] have both shown some promise in the treatment of ADHD.”

    From Advances in understanding and treating ADHD (2011) · cites this paper as [74]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 33

Authors
Arabgol, F., Panaghi, L., & Hebrani, P.
Affiliations
  • Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
  • Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Arabgol, Fariba
Venue
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Published
2008-06-18
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
53-59
ISSN
  • 1018-8827 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-165X
OpenAlex
W2040571430
Cited by
33
References
31
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (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 › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
reboxetine, methylphenidate, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children and adolescents, tolerability, adverse effects, sleepiness, anorexia
MeSH terms
Reboxetine, Adolescent, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Morpholines, Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors

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