Cited by 190Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSchizophrenia research and treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing Guanfacine and Dextroamphetamine for the Treatment of Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Taylor, Fletcher B., Russo, Joan·2001·Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of the alpha-2a agonist guanfacine with that of dextroamphetamine for the treatment of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Seventeen adult outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study comparing drug effects on ADHD symptoms. Measures of change included the DSM-IV ADHD Behavior Checklist for Adults and the Copeland Symptom Checklist for Adult Attention Deficit Disorders. Cognitive measures of attention included the Stroop and Controlled Oral Word Association Test using the letters "C," "F," and "L" (COWAT, CFL version). For each trial, the drug was administered daily and titered up to optimal doses of maximum efficacy but with a minimum of side effects, and then data were collected. Both drugs significantly reduced ADHD symptoms on the DSM-IV Adult Behavior Checklist for Adults over placebo (p < 0.05). The Stroop Color subscale showed significant improvement for both drugs (p < 0.05), but the Color-Word measures showed significant improvement for guanfacine only (p < 0.01). The average dose of guanfacine was 1.10 (SD = 0.60), and the most common side effect of guanfacine was fatigue. No subjects discontinued drug trials. This preliminary study indicates that guanfacine may be a well-tolerated treatment option for adult ADHD.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004714-200104000-00015

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Guanfacine, while improving ADHD symptoms relative to placebo, may not be an optimal drug to improve specific attention measures.

    “Together, this suggests that guanfacine, while improving ADHD symptoms relative to placebo (39–41, 43, 44), may not be an optimal drug to improve specific attention measures.”
  • Only one small study of 17 adults with ADHD showed improvement in focused attention and interference inhibition in the Stroop task after two weeks of both guanfacine and dextroamphetamine relative to placebo, with guanfacine being superior to dextroamphetamine.

    “Only one small study of 17 adults with ADHD showed improvement in focused attention and interference inhibition in the Stroop task after two weeks of both guanfacine and dextroamphetamine relative to placebo, with guanfacine being superior to dextroamphetamine (44).”
  • Out of six studies testing effects of mostly longer-term guanfacine effects on cognition, four reported sedative symptoms or fatigue while two other studies did not record or report them.

    “Out of six studies testing effects of mostly longer-term guanfacine effects on cognition, four reported sedative symptoms (39, 40, 43) or fatigue (44) while two other studies did not record or report them (39, 42).”
  • An early small study of adults with ADHD showed guanfacine could improve performance of Stroop interference task.

    “An early, small study of adults with ADHD showed that guanfacine could improve performance of the Stroop interference task”
  • Guanfacine has been shown to improve feature-based selective attention in at least one study of 17 adults with ADHD.

    “Guanfacine, a direct alpha2a agonist, has been shown to improve feature-based selective attention in at least one study of 17 adults with ADHD126.”

    From Paying attention to attention in depression (2019) · cites this paper as [126]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Murphy, 1996, ADHD Rep, 4, 12
  2. Holdnack, 1995, Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol, 8, 282

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, F. B., & Russo, J.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Fletcher B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2001-04
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
223-228
ISSN
0271-0749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018897037
Cited by
189
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
adult ADHD, guanfacine, d-amphetamine, stimulant medication, ADHD symptom reduction, Stroop task, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, attention, drug tolerability, fatigue
MeSH terms
Adrenergic alpha-Agonists, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Dextroamphetamine, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychological Tests, Guanfacine, Cross-Over Studies, Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors

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