CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Treatment Outcomes with Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children Who Have Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder with Emotional Control Impairments

Open access
Katic, Alain, Dirks, Bryan, Babcock, Thomas, Scheckner, Brian, Adeyi, Ben, Richards, Cynthia, Findling, Robert L.·2013·Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology
DOI 10.1089/cap.2012.0104PMC PMC3749705
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) treatment effects based on baseline emotional control dysfunction in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) categorized with or without impairments of executive function (EF) emotional control. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses of a 7 week, open-label LDX study in children with ADHD (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision [DSM-IV-TR] defined) and impairments in EF control of emotional response. At baseline, participants were dichotomized by Behavior Rating Inventory of EF (BRIEF) emotional control domain T-scores of ≥65 (with impairment) or <65 (without impairment). ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV), BRIEF Global Executive Composite and emotional control domain, Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC) scores, Pearson correlations for BRIEF versus ADHD-RS-IV and EESC, and Clinical Global Impressions scores were assessed at baseline and end of study (week 7)/early termination (EOS/ET) by baseline category of BRIEF emotional control impairment. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: At baseline and EOS/ET, respectively, 53.0% and 20.7% met criteria for emotional control impairment. Participants with and without emotional control impairments had similar ADHD-RS-IV change scores. Mean (SD) change from baseline for those with and without emotional control impairments were -20.8 (12.89) and -14.6 (11.25) for BRIEF global scores and -16.0 (13.19) and -5.0 (9.48) for BRIEF emotional control domain scores. Participants with emotional control impairments had greater mean EESC total score changes. BRIEF emotional control domain and all ADHD-RS-IV scores indicated moderate correlations between change scores (all p<0.0001). Overall, 84.9% of participants had TEAEs (mostly mild-to-moderate in severity); 3.8% discontinued because of TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of children with behavioral impairments in EF control of emotional response decreased during LDX treatment. ADHD symptoms improved in both groups. The moderate correlations between EF behaviors and ADHD symptoms suggest there may be utility in evaluating behavioral domains beyond core ADHD symptoms.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a post-hoc analysis of a 7-week open-label lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) study in children with ADHD, the proportion with BRIEF emotional control impairment fell from 53.0% at baseline to 20.7% at end of study/early termination. ADHD symptoms improved similarly in children with and without baseline emotional control impairment, while those with impairment showed greater improvement on BRIEF and EESC emotional measures.

Key findings

  • At baseline, 167/315 (53.0%) had BRIEF emotional control impairment; at EOS/ET, 63/305 (20.7%) had impairment.
  • ADHD-RS-IV change scores were similar between groups; BRIEF Global Executive Composite T-score changes were −20.8 (12.89) with baseline impairment vs −14.6 (11.25) without, and BRIEF emotional control domain changes were −16.0 (13.19) vs −5.0 (9.48).
  • EESC total/subscale changes were generally numerically larger in the baseline impaired group; BRIEF emotional control correlated moderately with ADHD-RS-IV total and hyperactivity/impulsivity at baseline and with all ADHD-RS-IV scores for change (all p<0.0001), while EESC emotional lability correlations were relatively strong (~0.7).
  • TEAEs occurred in 269/317 (84.9%), mostly mild-to-moderate; 12/317 (3.8%) discontinued because of TEAEs.

Methods

  • Post-hoc analyses of a 7-week, open-label, multicenter, dose-optimization study of LDX 20–70 mg/d in children 6–12 years with DSM-IV-TR ADHD and baseline ADHD-RS-IV total score ≥28.
  • Participants were dichotomized by baseline BRIEF emotional control T-score ≥65 (with impairment) vs <65 (without impairment); assessments included ADHD-RS-IV, BRIEF GEC/emotional control, EESC, and CGI-S/CGI-I at baseline and EOS/ET or weekly, plus safety/TEAEs.
  • Analyses used summary statistics by baseline category and Pearson correlations between BRIEF emotional control and ADHD-RS-IV/EESC scores; no comparative statistical tests between dichotomized groups were performed.

Limitations

  • Stated: exploratory post-hoc analyses were not powered to show quantitative statistical effects; open-label design; short 7-week duration limits long-term extrapolation; limited number of participants with comorbid disorders may not reflect the general clinical ADHD population.
  • Evident from the text: no between-group comparative statistical analyses were performed because of the post-hoc nature and relatively small subgroups; the EESC could not be used to dichotomize patients because it lacks established criteria and has large variance.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cap.2012.0104

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 19 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Changes from baseline to end of study/early termination showed a moderate correlation for ADHD-RS-IV total score versus BRIEF emotional control domain T-scores (p<0.0001).

    “Changes from baseline to EOS/ET showed moderate correlations for ADHD-RS-IV total score and inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale scores (all p<0.0001) versus the BRIEF emotional control domain T-scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    As categorized by end of study/early termination BRIEF emotional control T-scores, the mean (SD) end of study/early termination CGI-I rating was 2.0 (1.02) for those with emotional control impairments (n=65).

    “As categorized by EOS/ET BRIEF emotional control T-scores, the mean (SD) EOS/ET CGI-I ratings were 2.0 (1.02) for those with emotional control impairments (n=65) and 1.4 (0.65) for those without emotional control impairments (n=243).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Correlations between BRIEF emotional control subscale T-scores and EESC emotional lability subscale scores were relatively higher compared with other domains and scores.

    “Correlations between BRIEF emotional control subscale T-scores and EESC emotional lability subscale scores were relatively higher compared with other domains and scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    As categorized by baseline BRIEF emotional control T-scores, the mean (SD) baseline CGI-S rating was 4.8 (0.69) for participants with emotional control impairments (n=167).

    “As categorized by baseline BRIEF emotional control T-scores, the mean (SD) baseline CGI-S ratings, were 4.8 (0.69) for those participants with emotional control impairments (n=167) and 4.6 (0.68) for those without emotional control impairments (n=148).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    At baseline, 53.0% (167/315) of children with ADHD in this study met BRIEF criteria for emotional control impairment (T-score ≥65).

    “At baseline and EOS/ET, respectively, 53.0% and 20.7% met criteria for emotional control impairment.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “167 of 315 children (53.0%) had impairments, and 148 (47.0%) did not have impairments in BRIEF emotional control at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Methods

    The EESC can be used in a clinical setting to determine changes in emotional expression in children receiving pharmacotherapy for ADHD.

    “The EESC can be used in a clinical setting to determine changes in emotional expression in children receiving pharmacotherapy for ADHD (Kratochvil et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kratochvil et al. 2007 source

      The Discussion (p. 11) describes the EESC as potentially useful clinically for assessing changes in emotional expression in children treated with ADHD medication. But it presents clinical utility as a possibility, not an established capability, and notes that prospective sensitivity to change has not yet been demonstrated (p. 11). (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The potential of floor effects to limit observed changes was also noted in a previous analysis of ADHD treatment effects on emotional expression using the EESC scale.

    “The potential of floor effects to limit observed changes was also noted in a previous analysis of ADHD treatment effects on emotional expression using the EESC scale (Kratochvil et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kratochvil et al. 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Core symptoms of ADHD, especially hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, are more pronounced with increasing severity of emotional lability.

    “Sobanski and colleagues reported that the core symptoms of ADHD, especially hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, were more pronounced with increasing severity of emotional lability (Sobanski et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sobanski et al. 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    When stratified by baseline BRIEF emotional control T-scores, 164 (52.6%) of EESC-assessed participants had emotional control impairments and 148 (47.4%) had no emotional control impairments.

    “When stratified by baseline BRIEF emotional control T-scores, 164 (52.6%) of these participants had emotional control impairments and 148 (47.4%) had no emotional control impairments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by study participants that may have been related to emotional control impairment included irritability (16.1%), affect lability (7.3%), anxiety (1.3%), tearfulness (1.3%), aggression (0.9%), agitation (0.9%), flat affect (0.9%), mood swings (0.6%), restlessness (0.6%), crying (0.3%), dysphoria (0.3%), and nervousness (0.3%).

    “TEAEs reported by study participants that may have been related to emotional control impairment included irritability (16.1%), affect lability (7.3%), anxiety (1.3%), tearfulness (1.3%), aggression (0.9%), agitation (0.9%), flat affect (0.9%), mood swings (0.6%), restlessness (0.6%), crying (0.3%), dysphoria (0.3%), and nervousness (0.3%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    BRIEF emotional control domain and all ADHD-RS-IV scores indicated moderate correlations between change scores (all p<0.0001).

    “BRIEF emotional control domain and all ADHD-RS-IV scores indicated moderate correlations between change scores (all p<0.0001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Children with impairments in the BRIEF emotional control domain showed greater improvement, so that at end of study/early termination the two groups had similar GEC T-scores.

    “They also showed greater improvement, so that at EOS/ET, the two groups had similar GEC T-scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Mean change from baseline to EOS/ET in BRIEF emotional control domain T-score was −16.0 (SD 13.19) for children with baseline emotional control impairment and −5.0 (SD 9.48) for those without.

    “The mean (SD) T-score change from baseline at EOS/ET on the BRIEF emotional control domain was numerically greater for those with impaired emotional control (−16.0 [13.19]) than for those without emotional control impairments (−5.0 [9.48]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Numerical differences between groups in change scores are meaningful despite the absence of comparative statistical analyses between the dichotomized emotional control categories.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Participants categorized as having emotional control impairments had a baseline mean BRIEF GEC T-score of 78.9 (SD 7.20), numerically greater than children without emotional control impairments (68.4 [SD 7.24]).

    “Participants categorized as having emotional control impairments had a baseline mean (SD) BRIEF GEC T-score of 78.9 (7.20), which was numerically greater than that of children without emotional control impairments (68.4 [7.24]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Overall, 84.9% of participants had treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly mild-to-moderate in severity.

    “Overall, 84.9% of participants had TEAEs (mostly mild-to-moderate in severity); 3.8% discontinued because of TEAEs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Discussion

    Participants without baseline emotional control impairments improved, but their change scores were less than those of participants with baseline emotional control impairments.

    “Although participants without baseline emotional control impairments improved, their change scores were less than those of participants with baseline emotional control impairments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Other treatment-emergent adverse events associated with emotional control and leading to discontinuation included severe irritability (20 mg/day LDX), moderate irritability (30 mg/day LDX), moderate aggression and irritability (40 mg/day LDX), and mild aggression/temper outburst (20 mg/day LDX).

    “Other TEAEs that were associated with emotional control and led to discontinuation included severe irritability (20 mg/day LDX), moderate irritability (30 mg/day LDX), moderate aggression and irritability (40 mg/day LDX), and mild aggression/temper outburst (20 mg/day LDX).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Improvement was observed in both groups at EOS/ET, with mean BRIEF GEC T-scores of 58.1 (SD 12.95) for those with and 53.7 (SD 10.28) for those without emotional control impairments.

    “Improvement was observed in both groups at EOS/ET, with a mean (SD) GEC T-score of 58.1 (12.95) and 53.7 (10.28) for those with and without emotional control impairments, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Mean change from baseline to EOS/ET in BRIEF Global Executive Composite T-score was −20.8 (SD 12.89) for children with baseline emotional control impairment and −14.6 (SD 11.25) for those without.

    “Change scores were −20.8 (12.89) and −14.6 (11.25), respectively (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    In the present study, despite greater improvement in BRIEF GEC T-scores in the subgroup of children with baseline emotional control impairments, both subgroups improved over the course of the study.

    “In the present study, despite the greater improvement in BRIEF GEC T-scores in the subgroup of children with baseline emotional control impairments, both subgroups improved over the course of the study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Discussion

    Global illness severity and improvement appeared similar for children categorized with and without BRIEF emotional control impairments.

    “Global illness severity and improvement appeared similar for children categorized with and without BRIEF emotional control impairments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Conclusions

    Children with ADHD showed improvement in emotional expression (by EESC scores) and ADHD symptoms (by ADHD-RS-IV scores) during LDX treatment regardless of BRIEF emotional control domain impairments at baseline.

    “Children with ADHD showed improvement in emotional expression (by EESC scores) and ADHD symptoms (by ADHD-RS-IV scores) during LDX treatment regardless of BRIEF emotional control domain impairments at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    The open-label design and short study duration limit the ability to extrapolate LDX effects on emotional lability over the long term.

    “Other study constraints are the open-label design and the short study duration that limits the ability to extrapolate LDX effects on emotional lability over the long term.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Methods

    The clinician-administered EESC is a 29 item measure assessing parents' report of positive and negative aspects of emotion and expression.

    “The clinician-administered EESC is a 29 item measure assessing parents' report of positive and negative aspects of emotion and expression (Perwien et al. 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Perwien et al. 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Introduction

    The BRIEF emotional control subscale assesses EF behavioral control over emotional expression.

    “This subscale assesses EF behavioral control over emotional expression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al. 2000 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    This was an exploratory study that used post-hoc assessments, and the results were not powered to show quantitative statistical effects.

    “This was an exploratory study that used post-hoc assessments; therefore, it is important to consider that the results were not powered to show quantitative statistical effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    316 of 318 (99.4%) participants were included in the intention-to-treat population.

    “In summary, 317 of 318 (99.7%) participants enrolled in the overall population were included in the safety population, 316 (99.4%) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 278 (87.4%) completed the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    317 of 318 (99.7%) enrolled participants were included in the safety population.

    “In summary, 317 of 318 (99.7%) participants enrolled in the overall population were included in the safety population, 316 (99.4%) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 278 (87.4%) completed the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Emotional expression in children and adolescents with ADHD is often more labile than in those without ADHD (23.0% vs 6.3%).

    “Using a parent-reported strengths and difficulties questionnaire, the 2003 National Health Information Survey found that emotional expression in children and adolescents (ages 4–17 years) with ADHD is often more labile than that of those without ADHD (23.0% vs 6.3%, respectively) (Strine et al. 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strine et al. 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    The study was conducted in accordance with current applicable regulations, Good Clinical Practice, and local ethical and legal requirements.

    “This study was conducted in accordance with current applicable regulations, with International Conference on Harmonization of Good Clinical Practice and local ethical and legal requirements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    In a post-hoc analysis of EESC data sets based on the Jacobson and Truax method, at least 99% of participants did not show emotional control impairments and method-defined, reliable change in emotional expression during LDX treatment.

    “In a post-hoc analysis of EESC data sets based on the Jacobson and Truax method (Jacobson and Truax 1991), ≥99% of participants did not show emotional control impairments and method-defined, reliable change in emotional expression during LDX treatment (Katic et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jacobson and Truax 1991 source
    • cites Katic et al. 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    278 of 318 (87.4%) participants completed the study.

    “In summary, 317 of 318 (99.7%) participants enrolled in the overall population were included in the safety population, 316 (99.4%) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 278 (87.4%) completed the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    Because of the post-hoc nature of these analyses and the relatively small subgroups, no comparative statistical analyses of dichotomized emotional control categories were performed between groups.

    “Because of the post-hoc nature of these analyses and the relatively small subgroups, no comparative statistical analyses of dichotomized emotional control categories were performed between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Introduction

    The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) is a validated measure of executive function in children and includes an emotional control subscale.

    “The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) (Gioia et al. 2000) is a validated measure of executive function (EF) in children and includes an emotional control subscale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al. 2000 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    The limited number of participants with comorbid disorders in this study may not be reflective of the general clinical population of patients with ADHD.

    “Also, the limited number of participants with comorbid disorders in this study may not be reflective of the general clinical population of patients with ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Methods

    The BRIEF emotional control domain is a 10 item subscale measuring EF control over behaviors reflecting emotional response.

    “The emotional control domain is a 10 item subscale measuring EF control over behaviors reflecting emotional response.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al. 2000 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    The study protocol and amendments, informed consent, and assent forms were submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review Board/Independent Ethics Committee.

    “The study protocol and amendments, as well as the parent/legally authorized representative's informed consent and the participant's assent forms, were submitted in writing to the Institutional Review Board/Independent Ethics Committee and approved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data
    § Conclusions

    ADHD symptoms improved in both groups with and without baseline emotional control impairments during LDX treatment.

    “ADHD symptoms improved in both groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Changes from baseline to EOS/ET in ADHD symptoms, emotional control, and emotional expression are attributable to LDX treatment rather than to other factors such as natural course, regression to the mean, or open-label effects.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Introduction

    The Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC) is a validated measure of emotional expression in children.

    “The Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC) (Perwien et al. 2008) is a validated measure of emotional expression in children.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Perwien et al. 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    The use of a single outcome measure may not be sufficient to capture all relevant ADHD symptom domains and to measure clinically relevant treatment response.

    “Therefore, the use of a single outcome measure may not be sufficient to capture all relevant ADHD symptom domains and to measure clinically relevant treatment response.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
35 of 35

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes from baseline to EOS/ET in ADHD symptoms, emotional control, and emotional expression are attributable to LDX treatment rather than to other factors such as natural course, regression to the mean, or open-label effects.

    “The proportion of children with behavioral impairments in EF control of emotional response decreased during LDX treatment.”
    “ADHD symptoms improved in both groups.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Numerical differences between groups in change scores are meaningful despite the absence of comparative statistical analyses between the dichotomized emotional control categories.

    “Because of the post-hoc nature of these analyses and the relatively small subgroups, no comparative statistical analyses of dichotomized emotional control categories were performed between groups. However, summary statistics were generated.”
2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Discussion calls all baseline ADHD correlations moderate

    Minor

    The discussion includes all ADHD-RS-IV scores in its description of moderate baseline correlations, but Table 1 reports a baseline inattention correlation of 0.0729. The Results also describe that correlation as nonsignificant.

  • EESC correlation table lists more participants than had baseline EESC data

    Minor

    Table 2 labels the EESC correlations as having n=316, although the Results state that EESC was recorded for only 312 participants at baseline. A baseline EESC correlation cannot include more participants than had baseline EESC measurements.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. American Psychiatric Association: Attention-deficit and disruptive behavior disorders. In: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000, pp. 85–93.
  2. Barkley RA, 2010, J ADHD Related Disord, 1, 5
  3. Barkley RA, 2010, J ADHD Relat Disord, 1, 5
  4. Childress AC, 2012, J Atten Disord
  5. Strine TW, 2006, Prev Chronic Dis, 3, A52

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Katic, A., Dirks, B., Babcock, T., Scheckner, B., Adeyi, B., Richards, C., & Findling, R. L.
Affiliations
  • Private practice, Houston, Texas.
  • Clinical Development and Innovation, Shire Development LLC, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
  • Global Medical Affairs, Shire Development, LLC, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
  • Biostatistics and Statistical Programming Department, Shire Development LLC, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
  • Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Katic, Alain
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-08
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
386-393
ISSN
  • 1044-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8992
DOI
10.1089/cap.2012.0104
PMC
PMC3749705
OpenAlex
W2076699588
Semantic Scholar
259ac17d303ce929f9dc91417bbe276349b05332
Cited by
10
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, executive function, children, stimulant medication, treatment outcomes, adverse events, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, ADHD symptoms, treatment-emergent adverse events, early termination, open-label extension, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Dextroamphetamine, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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