Cited by 26Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

An Evaluation on the Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents: a Comparison of Multiple Treatments

Li, Ying, Gao, Jie, He, Shu, Zhang, Yan, Wang, Qiwei·2017·Molecular Neurobiology

Abstract

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurobehavioral disorders. We carried out this comparison of multiple treatments based on sufficient data in attempt to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ADHD medication for children and adolescents. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database were used to search for relevant articles. Changes in the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) scores and the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS) scores were used as outcomes for efficacy. Withdrawals due to all-cause, adverse effects and lack of efficacy were defined as primary outcomes evaluating the safety of such medications. Both pair-wise and network meta-analyses were performed. Efficacy and safety of atomoxetine (ATX), bupropion (BUP), clonidine hydrochloride (CLON), guanfacine extended release (GXR), lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), and methylphenidate (MPH) were evaluated. LDX has the highest efficacy and a relatively lower rate of adverse effects compared to BUP, CLON and GXR. MPH has the lowest incidence rate of adverse effects and takes second place concerning ADHD-RS scores and third place concerning CPRS scores. ATX has the lowest incidence rate of all-cause withdrawals. The efficacy of ATX seems, however, to be lower than CLON, GXR, LDX and MPH. Adversely, BUP has the highest incidence rate of withdrawals and the second highest probability of causing adverse effects as well as lack of efficacy; therefore it should not be recommended as a treatment…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12035-016-0179-6

Cites

13 of 13 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
Li, Y., Gao, J., He, S., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q.
Affiliations
Henan University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Li, Ying
  • Gao, Jie
Venue
Molecular Neurobiology
Published
2016-10-13
Volume
54
Issue
9
Pages
6655-6669
ISSN
  • 0893-7648 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-1182
OpenAlex
W2531524018
Cited by
26
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Molecular Neurobiology (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, ADHD medication, children and adolescents, atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine extended release, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, methylphenidate, treatment efficacy, adverse effects, drug withdrawal
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Clonidine, Dextroamphetamine, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Treatment Outcome, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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