Cited by 67Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSchizophrenia research and treatment

Are stimulants effective in the treatment of executive function deficits? Results from a randomized double blind study of OROS-methylphenidate in adults with ADHD

Biederman, Joseph, Mick, Eric, Fried, Ronna, Wilner, Nicole, Spencer, Thomas J., Faraone, Stephen V.·2011·European Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between executive function deficits (EFDs) and response to methylphenidate treatment in ADHD in adults. We conducted a 6-week, parallel design, randomized, placebo controlled study in adults with DSM-IV ADHD. Our psychometric index of executive function used standardized neuropsychological testing. We assessed behaviors reflective of EFDs using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function--Adult Version (BRIEF-A). Subjects with available measures of executive functioning (OROS-MPH N=40; Placebo N=47) were included for analysis. There was no difference in the percent of subjects completing the 6-week acute efficacy Phase I of the trial (100% (N=40) vs. 98% (N=46), p=0.4). The mean daily dose at Phase I endpoint was 84.6±31.6 mg (1.04±0.29 mg/kg) OROS-MPH and 100.5±21.9 mg (1.20±0.11 mg/kg) placebo (p=0.0007). Based on the neuropsychological testing at the baseline assessment, 40% of the ADHD subjects (N=35/87) were considered to have EFDs but 93% (N=81) of subjects had ≥ 2 BRIEF-A clinical scale T-scores > 65. Regardless of the definition used, however, EFDs did not impact the clinical response to OROS-MPH. This randomized clinical trial showed that executive function deficits do not moderate the response to methylphenidate and measures of executive function deficits are not associated with response to OROS-MPH.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.11.005

Cites

38 of 38 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
Biederman, J., Mick, E., Fried, R., Wilner, N., Spencer, T. J., & Faraone, S. V.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
Corresponding author
Biederman, Joseph
Venue
European Neuropsychopharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
508-515
ISSN
0924-977X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066267313
Cited by
67
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
executive dysfunction, adult ADHD, OROS methylphenidate, methylphenidate, BRIEF-A, neuropsychological assessment, treatment moderators
MeSH terms
Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Delayed-Action Preparations, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Placebos, Psychological Tests, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Executive Function

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