Cited by 31Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Optimization Study of the Methylphenidate Transdermal System for the Treatment of ADHD in Adolescents

Findling, Robert L., Turnbow, John, Burnside, John, Melmed, Raun, Civil, Rich, Li, Yunfeng·2010·CNS Spectrums

Abstract

Introduction: The current report evaluates the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS) compared with placebo transdermal system (PTS) in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: A total of 217 subjects participated in a 7-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization study of MTS (10-, 15-, 20- or 30-mg/9 hours). Subjects were randomized into a 2:1 MTS to PTS ratio and titrated to an optimal dose during an initial 5-week period. Subjects maintained their optimal dose through a subsequent 2-week period. The primary outcome measure was the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV). Safety of MTS was assessed throughout the study by analyzing adverse events, results of physical examinations, laboratory evaluations, vital sign data, electrocardiograms, and dermal evaluations. Results: Treatment with MTS demonstrated greater reductions from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score compared to PTS at endpoint (P <.0001). The majority of the adverse events (98.5%) were mild or moderate in intensity, the most common of which were decreased appetite, headache, irritability, and upper respiratory tract infection. Three subjects in the MTS group discontinued because of an application site reaction. Conclusions: MTS therapy was generally well-tolerated and resulted in significantly greater improvements in ADHD symptoms in adolescents when compared to PTS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1092852900000353

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Findling, R. L., Turnbow, J., Burnside, J., Melmed, R., Civil, R., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
Venue
CNS Spectrums
Published
2010-07
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
419-430
ISSN
  • 1092-8529 (ISSN-L)
  • 2165-6509
OpenAlex
W2467079106
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CNS Spectrums (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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adolescents, ADHD Rating Scale-IV, dose titration, drug safety, adverse events, transdermal drug delivery
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Methylphenidate

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