Cited by 39Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

The effects of chronic administration of stimulant and non-stimulant medications on executive functions in ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Isfandnia, Ferdous, El Masri, Sahid, Radua, Joaquim, Rubia, Katya·2024·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is associated with executive function deficits that are improved with medications. However, meta-analyses of stimulant effects on cognition have mostly tested single-dose effects, and there is no meta-analysis of non-stimulant effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the clinically more relevant longer-term effects of Methylphenidate (20 studies; minimum 1 week) and Atomoxetine (8 studies; minimum 3 weeks) on reaction time, attention, inhibition, and working memory, searching papers on PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. The meta-analysis of 18 studies in 1667 subjects showed that methylphenidate was superior to placebo in all cognitive domains with small to medium effect sizes (Hedges g of 0.34-0.59). The meta-analysis of atomoxetine included 7 studies in 829 subjects and showed no effects in working memory, but superior effects in the other domains with medium to large effect sizes (Hedge's g of 0.36-0.64). Meta-regression analysis showed no drug differences on cognitive effects. The meta-analyses show for the first time that chronic Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine have comparable effects of improving executive functions in people with ADHD.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105703

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Longer-term administration of both methylphenidate and atomoxetine improved MRT, attention and inhibition with statistically comparable small to medium effect sizes.

    “Our meta-analysis showed that longer-term administration of both methylphenidate and atomoxetine improved MRT, attention and inhibition with statistically comparable small to medium effect sizes (31).”

    From Differential effects of a single dose of Lisdexamfetamine and Guanfacine on cognitive function in children with ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The available passage is title and author metadata, with no results section or page. Searches for MRT, attention, inhibition, the two medications, and comparable effect sizes found no passage in our copy that addresses the claimed outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lisdexamfetamine effects on RT and CV extend findings that methylphenidate consistently improves RTV and RT in children with ADHD.

    “They extend findings of methylphenidate consistently improving RTV and RT in children with ADHD (22, 29–31), with meta-analytic fMRI evidence showing that this may be underpinned neurofunctionally by MPH-induced deactivation of frontal areas of the DMN which is associated with RTV in people with ADHD (75).”

    From Differential effects of a single dose of Lisdexamfetamine and Guanfacine on cognitive function in children with ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The only passage available from our copy is the paper’s title and author information (no section or page). Searches for methylphenidate, reaction time variability (RTV), and reaction time (RT) found no passage reporting whether these measures improved in children with ADHD. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Methylphenidate both in acute and longer-term dosage has been shown to improve inhibitory measures.

    “This was also unexpected as methylphenidate both in acute and longer-term dosage has been shown to improve inhibitory measures (17, 22, 29–31).”

    From Differential effects of a single dose of Lisdexamfetamine and Guanfacine on cognitive function in children with ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The supplied passage and all retrieved passages contain only the paper’s title and author information, with no findings on inhibitory measures. Searches for acute and chronic methylphenidate effects and response inhibition found no relevant text in the accessible copy, so the claim cannot be checked. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The study's findings could extend evidence for acute and chronic methylphenidate administration significantly improving timing and attention functions in children with ADHD including the same tasks.

    “These findings could extend evidence for acute and chronic methylphenidate administration significantly improving timing (66, 94) and attention functions in children with ADHD including the same tasks (22, 29–31).”

    From Differential effects of a single dose of Lisdexamfetamine and Guanfacine on cognitive function in children with ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    Our indexed copy returns only the paper’s title and author metadata, with no Results passage. Searches for methylphenidate’s effects on attention, timing, and the same tasks found no substantive text, so the claimed improvement cannot be checked against this copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Isfandnia, F., El Masri, S., Radua, J., & Rubia, K.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Rubia, Katya
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-07
Volume
162
Pages
105703
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396670527
Cited by
36
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 3
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Centres de Recerca de Catalunya
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR130077, NIHR203684)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • King's College London
  • European Commission
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (454245598)
  • Generalitat de Catalunya
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre
  • Medical Research Council
  • European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, executive function, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, stimulant medication, non-stimulant medication, chronic drug administration, reaction time, attention, inhibition, working memory
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Methylphenidate, 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