Cited by 116Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesPharmacology and Obesity Treatment

Analog Classroom Assessment of a Once-Daily Mixed Amphetamine Formulation, SLI381 (ADDERALL XR), in Children With ADHD

Open access
MCCRACKEN, JAMES T., BIEDERMAN, JOSEPH, GREENHILL, LAURENCE L., SWANSON, JAMES M., MCGOUGH, JAMES J., SPENCER, THOMAS J., POSNER, KELLY, WIGAL, SHARON +3 more·2003·Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Objectives This investigation was conducted primarily to assess the safety and efficacy of SLI381 (Adderall XR), developed as a once-daily treatment for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Secondary objectives included examination of the time course, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties of SLI381.Method This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover study of three doses of SLI381 (10, 20, and 30 mg), placebo, and an active control (Adderall 10 mg) given once daily to 51 children with ADHD. Weekly assessments in an analog classroom setting included blind ratings of attention and deportment and a performance measure (math test) obtained every 1.5 hours over a 12-hour period.Results SLI381 was well tolerated. All active treatment conditions displayed significant time course effects and were superior to placebo in improving efficacy measures. Dose-dependent improvements were evident for SLI381. SLI381 20 and 30 mg and Adderall all showed rapid improvements by 1.5 hours, but only the SLI381 20- and 30-mg doses showed continued activity at 10.5 and 12 hours for classroom behavior and math test performance versus placebo.Conclusions These data provide support for the benefit of this novel, once-daily amphetamine preparation in the treatment of ADHD. The longer duration of action of SLI381 has the potential to simplify psychostimulant dosing, thus reducing dose diversion and eliminating the need for in-school administration. SLI381 appears to be a useful treatment option for many children with ADHD.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a randomized, double-blind, crossover analog classroom study of 51 children with ADHD, once-daily SLI381 (Adderall XR) 10, 20, and 30 mg improved behavior and math performance versus placebo across up to 12 hours, with dose-dependent effects. SLI381 20 and 30 mg showed significant benefits at most postdose time points through 12 hours, and the drug was generally well tolerated.

Key findings

  • The overall mixed-model ANOVA for the intent-to-treat population (N = 49) showed highly significant effects of treatment, period, session, and treatment-by-session interaction on all four primary efficacy variables: SKAMP Attention and Deportment and PERMP math problems attempted and correct; the treatment-by-session interaction was p < .0001.
  • SLI381 30 mg showed significant improvement (p < .01) over placebo at all postdose time points. SLI381 20 mg was significant (p < .01) at all other postdose time points except Attention at 1.5 hours (p = .0513) and Deportment at 12 hours (p = .0531). SLI381 10 mg significantly reduced Attention problems at 4.5, 6.0, 7.5, and 10.5 hours and Deportment problems from 4.5 to 9.0 hours. Adderall 10 mg significantly decreased Attention problems from 1.5 to 7.5 hours and Deportment problems from 1.5 to 10.5 hours.
  • On math measures, SLI381 20 and 30 mg produced statistically significant increases in problems attempted and solved at all postdose time points through 12 hours; SLI381 10 mg was significant from 4.5 to 10.5 hours. At 12 hours, children in the SLI381 20- and 30-mg groups correctly completed 34% and 43% more math problems than placebo children, respectively.
  • Placebo subjects deteriorated across the day: by 10.5 hours postdose they attempted 35% fewer math problems and correctly answered 43% less than at the first assessment; at 12 hours they attempted 17% fewer and were correct on 25% fewer. No serious side effects were reported or observed, and 96% of patients were compliant with study treatment.

Methods

  • Fifty-one children aged 6 to 12 years with DSM-IV ADHD (combined or hyperactive-impulsive subtype) were enrolled at four academic sites after a 1-week washout. After an open-label 20-mg SLI381 practice day, 49 children were randomized in a double-blind, crossover design to five treatment weeks: SLI381 10, 20, and 30 mg, Adderall 10 mg, and placebo, each administered at 7:30 A.M.; a Latin square determined sequence, with a sixth makeup week.
  • Analog classroom assessments occurred on 7 consecutive Saturdays. Classroom periods lasted 45 minutes and were scheduled at 1.5, 4.5, 6.0, 7.5, 9.0, 10.5, and 12.0 hours postdose (no 3.0-hour period). Primary measures were the SKAMP Attention and Deportment ratings and the PERMP 10-minute math test scored for problems attempted and correct; secondary measures included parent and teacher side-effect ratings.
  • Analyses used mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, session, and treatment-by-session interaction; when the interaction was significant (p < .05), pairwise comparisons of individual treatments versus placebo were performed. All p values were two-tailed.

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: the analog classroom is a unique setting that may influence behavior; only ADHD subjects were included, with no normal control subjects; staffing level may have influenced behavior; the classroom performance variable is restricted in reflecting overall academic performance; additional measures such as actigraph, peer assays, and global teacher ratings are needed; larger samples are needed to explore adverse-event differences; other age groups such as adolescents need study; and the fixed-dose design was not intended to determine optimal individual doses or minimal side effects.
  • Evident from the text: pharmacokinetic results are not presented in this report and are deferred to a separate report; because no 3-hour postdose assessment was included, the exact onset of significant effect for SLI381 10 mg between 1.5 and 4.5 hours is unknown; the authors note a possible morning “rebound” effect but are cautious about concluding this; and direct comparative studies with methylphenidate are absent.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.chi.0000046863.56865.fe

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 31 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    All active treatments were associated with robust increases in problems attempted and problems solved versus placebo.

    “All active treatments were associated with robust increases in problems attempted and problems solved versus placebo.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § RESULTS

    Overall, study medications were well tolerated by the subjects.

    “Overall, study medications were well tolerated by the subjects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Treatment effect sizes generated from each of the four primary efficacy variables average approximately 1.0 for the SLI381 30-mg condition at 6 hours postdose.

    “Although this study was not designed to determine optimal doses for individual subjects, it is interesting to note that treatment effect sizes generated from each of the four primary efficacy variables average approximately 1.0 for the SLI381 30-mg condition at 6 hours postdose, suggesting excellent overall efficacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    SLI381 10 mg demonstrated significant increases from 4.5 to 10.5 hours versus placebo.

    “SLI381 10 mg demonstrated significant increases from 4.5 to 10.5 hours versus placebo.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    Analysis of the math problem variables showed robust, apparently dose-dependent treatment effects versus placebo by session.

    “Analysis of the math problem variables also showed robust, apparently dose-dependent treatment effects versus placebo by session (see Fig. 2, Tables 3 and 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 20
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    SLI381 10 mg demonstrated significant reductions in Attention problem ratings at 4.5, 6.0, 7.5, and 10.5 hours postdose, and Deportment problem ratings from 4.5 to 9.0 hours postdose.

    “SLI381 10 mg demonstrated significant reductions in Attention problem ratings at 4.5, 6.0, 7.5, and 10.5 hours postdose, Deportment problem ratings from 4.5 to 9.0 hours postdose.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Analyses of the effects of SLI381 20 mg and 30 mg showed both beneficial effects at the first postdose assessment (1.5 hours postdose) and maintenance of these improvements throughout 12 hours for the majority of assessments.

    “Analyses of the effects of SLI381 20 mg (equivalent to 10 mg of Adderall b.i.d.) and 30 mg (equivalent to 15 mg of Adderall b.i.d.) showed both beneficial effects at the first postdose assessment (1.5 hours postdose) and maintenance of these improvements throughout 12 hours for the majority of assessments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    Adderall 10 mg was associated with significant decreases in SKAMP ratings for Attention problems from 1.5 to 7.5 hours and for Deportment problems from 1.5 to 10.5 hours postdose.

    “Adderall 10 mg was associated with significant decreases in SKAMP ratings for Attention problems from 1.5 to 7.5 hours and for Deportment problems from 1.5 to 10.5 hours postdose.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    SLI381 20 mg just missed attaining statistical significance for Attention problem ratings at 1.5 hours (p = .0513) and Deportment problem ratings at 12 hours (p = .0531), but ratings were significant (p < .01) at all other postdose time points.

    “SLI381 20 mg just missed attaining statistical significance for Attention problem ratings at 1.5 hours (p = .0513)and Deportment problem ratings at 12 hours (p = .0531),but ratings were significant (p < .01)at all other postdose time points.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    For Adderall XR 10 mg, improvement in SKAMP Attention and Deportment ratings were observed by 4.5 hours postdose, and math problems attempted and correct were increased.

    “For Adderall XR 10 mg, equivalent to 5 mg of Adderall administered b.i.d., improvement in SKAMP Attention and Deportment ratings (as decreases in attention and behavior problems) were observed by 4.5 hours postdose, and math problems attempted and correct were increased.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    Adderall 10 mg demonstrated increases versus placebo at 1.5, 6.0, 7.5, and 9.0 hours postdose for number attempted; for number solved significance was found at the 1.5, 4.5, 6.0, and 9.0 time points.

    “Adderall 10 mg was found to demonstrate increases versus placebo at 1.5, 6.0, 7.5, and 9.0 hours postdose for number attempted; for number solved significance was found at the 1.5, 4.5, 6.0, and 9.0 time points.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    At the 12-hour session, placebo children attempted 17% fewer math problems and were correct on 25% fewer than at the initial assessment.

    “At the 12-hour session, placebo children attempted 17% fewer math problems and were correct on 25% fewer than at the initial assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    By 10.5 hours postdose, placebo subjects were attempting 35% fewer math problems and correctly answering 43% less than at the first assessment session.

    “By 10.5 hours postdose, subjects on placebo were attempting 35% fewer math problems and were correctly answering 43% less than at the first assessment session.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Study Design

    The study design was randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo- and active-controlled.

    “The study design which followed the first study day was randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-and active-controlled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Swanson et al. (1998) demonstrated a pattern of deterioration on placebo in performance across morning into afternoon assessments.

    “It is interesting that the Swanson et al. (1998) report also demonstrated the pattern of deterioration on placebo in performance across morning into afternoon assessments, highlighting the importance of providing appropriate control groups for time-response studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swanson et al., 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Analog Classroom Protocol

    The schedule and procedures for the analog classroom days were based on a modification of well-validated procedures used in previous time-response stimulant studies.

    “The schedule and procedures for the analog classroom days were based on a modification of well-validated procedures used in previous timeresponse stimulant studies (Pelham et al., 1995;Swanson et al., 1978Swanson et al., , 1998Swanson et al., , 2000)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Pelham et al., 1995 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Swanson et al., 1978 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Swanson et al., 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    James et al. (2001) described locomotor activity effects of amphetamine preparations up to 12 hours postdose but did not repeatedly probe disruptive behavior or academic performance.

    “James et al. (2001) recently described locomotor activity effects of amphetamine preparations up to 12 hours postdose, but they did not repeatedly probe disruptive behavior or academic performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites James et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Study Design

    A Latin square design was used to determine the randomization sequence, with approximately one fifth of the sample randomized to each of five treatment sequences.

    “A Latin square design was used to determine the randomization sequence for individual subjects for the first 5 weeks with approximately one fifth of the sample randomized to each of five treatment sequences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Analog Classroom Protocol

    Each classroom contained two observers who simultaneously rated behaviors using a behavioral observation system described previously.

    “In addition, each classroom contained two observers who simultaneously rated the behaviors of one half of the study group, using a behavioral observation system described previously (Swanson et al., 1998(Swanson et al., , 2000)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Swanson et al., 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Swanson et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Pelham et al. (1999) found apparent benefits of Adderall up to 7 hours after administration in a summer treatment program.

    “Pelham et al. (1999) studied Adderall effects in a summer treatment program and found apparent benefits up to 7 hours after administration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pelham et al., 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Pharmacokinetic Sampling

    Concentrations of d- and l-amphetamine were assayed using validated liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy methodology at a central laboratory.

    “Concentrations of d-and l-amphetamine were assayed using validated liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy methodology at a central laboratory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Analog Classroom Protocol

    To avoid confounding observation of medication effects, no behavioral or other treatment approaches were used during the analog classroom days.

    “To avoid confounding observation of medication effects, no behavioral or other treatment approaches were used during the analog classroom days.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Dependent Measures

    Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the SKAMP are high.

    “Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the SKAMP are high (Wigal et al., 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wigal et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § DISCUSSION

    Because the study protocol did not include a 3-hour postdose assessment, it is not known exactly at what point between 1.5 and 4.5 hours the SLI381 10-mg dose may have attained statistical significance versus placebo.

    “Because the study protocol did not include a 3-hour postdose assessment, it is not known exactly at what point between 1.5 and 4.5 hours the SLI381 10-mg dose may have attained statistical significance versus placebo.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Analog Classroom Protocol

    All classroom raters had completed reliability training for behavioral assessments.

    “All classroom raters had completed reliability training for behavioral assessments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Adderall XR showed excellent efficacy and tolerability and displayed a time course of action that extended beyond that of immediate-release Adderall at the 10-mg q.d. dose used as a positive control, and by comparison to prior reports of the pharmacodynamic time course for Adderall as assessed by similar measures, even for doses as high as 20 mg q.a.m.

    “Overall, Adderall XR showed excellent efficacy and tolerability and displayed a time course of action that extended beyond that of immediate-release Adderall at the 10-mg q.d.dose used as a positive control in this study, and by comparison to prior reports of the pharmacodynamic time course for Adderall as assessed by similar measures (Swanson et al., 1998), even for doses as high as 20 mg q.a.m.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swanson et al., 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: SLI381 is designed to release two pulses of active medication, modeling the PK profile of Adderall administered twice daily with doses approximately 4 hours apart.
    • Rests on an assumption: The classroom and play settings in the analog classroom are generally comparable to those regularly experienced by the children in school.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Limitations

    The classroom performance variable is restricted in its ability to reflect any child's overall academic performance across multiple subjects, demands, and tasks.

    “In addition, the classroom performance variable is restricted in its ability to reflect any child's overall academic performance across multiple subjects, demands, and tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Clinical Implications

    As a fixed-dose study, it was not intended to achieve minimal side effects.

    “As a fixed-dose study, it also was not intended to achieve minimal side effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Clinical Implications

    The study was not designed to ascertain optimal dose levels for individual subjects.

    “The study was not designed to ascertain optimal dose levels for individual subjects, which are well known to vary considerably among individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Clinical Implications

    Our data suggest that new drug delivery systems such as SLI381 (Adderall XR) represent a successful strategy to extend the benefits of psychostimulant treatment of ADHD without incurring added side effects, thereby avoiding some compliance issues raised by shorter-acting stimulant preparations.

    “Our data suggest new drug delivery systems such as SLI381 (Adderall XR) represent a successful strategy to extend the benefits of psychostimulant treatment of ADHD without incurring added side effects, thereby avoiding some of the compliance issues raised by shorter-acting stimulant preparations (Brown et al., 1987;Firestone, 1982;Kauffman et al., 1981).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 1987 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Firestone, 1982 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kauffman et al., 1981

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § DISCUSSION

    The study used techniques for behavior and performance assay which have been described in prior ADHD treatment research with extensive training used across the four research sites in the reliable implementation of use of analog classroom procedures.

    “use of techniques for behavior and performance assay which have been described in prior ADHD treatment research (Swanson et al., 2000) with extensive training used across the four research sites in the reliable implementation of use of analog classroom procedures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swanson et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation
    § Limitations

    The analog classroom, although attempting to mimic a regular school classroom, represents a unique setting that may influence behavior.

    “Although the analog classroom attempts to mimic many aspects of a regular school classroom, it admittedly represents a unique setting that may influence behavior (Barkley, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barkley, 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § DISCUSSION

    The 12-hour differences correspond to dimensionless effect sizes of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 and represent at least suggestive evidence of clinically significant remaining treatment benefit from SLI381 for ADHD as long as 12 hours after administration.

    “As these differences calculate to dimensionless effect sizes of between approximately 0.3 and 0.5, we would argue that they represent at least suggestive evidence of “clinically significant” (Kraemer, 1992) remaining treatment benefit from this extended-release preparation for ADHD as long as 12 hours after administration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kraemer, 1992 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Clinical Implications

    Arnold (2000), Swanson et al. (1998), and others (Elia et al., 1991) have stated that head-to-head comparisons of amphetamine agents versus methylphenidate suggest nearly equivalent group effects, although Arnold (2000) has raised the question of differential benefits in some symptom domains.

    “Arnold (2000), Swanson et al. (1998), and others (Elia et al., 1991) have stated that head-to-head comparisons of amphetamine agents versus methylphenidate suggest nearly equivalent group effects, although Arnold (2000) has raised the question of differential benefits in some symptom domains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Arnold (2000)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Swanson et al. (1998) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Elia et al., 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations

    The level of staffing may have influenced behavior.

    “Furthermore, the level of staffing may have influenced behavior, although mean behavior problem ratings on the SKAMP were clearly elevated during the placebo condition, and treatment effects were robust.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Limitations

    The analog assessments included only ADHD subjects; no control or normal subjects were available for comparison.

    “The analog assessments included only ADHD subjects; no control or normal subjects were available for comparison.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Clinical Implications

    SLI381 has the potential to work throughout the day and into the early evening after a single morning administration, thus avoiding in-school administration for children who need extended therapy.

    “It has the potential to work throughout the day and into the early evening after a single morning administration, thus avoiding in-school administration for those children who need extended therapy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Clinical Implications

    These data demonstrate clear and compelling therapeutic effects of stimulants by documenting improvements in both classroom behavioral and performance measures.

    “Furthermore, these data demonstrate the clear and compelling therapeutic effects of stimulants, by documenting improvements in both classroom behavioral and performance measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
33 of 33
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    SLI381 is designed to release two pulses of active medication, modeling the PK profile of Adderall administered twice daily with doses approximately 4 hours apart.

    “SLI381 is designed to release two pulses of active medication, modeling the PK profile of Adderall administered twice daily with doses administered approximately 4 hours apart.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Clinically, children with ADHD often experience difficulty with evening homework requirements and less structured family routines, requiring additional medication later in the day.

    “Clinically, children with ADHD often experience difficulty with evening homework requirements and less structured family routines, requiring additional medication later in the day.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The complexity of multiple daily dosing schedules contributes to reduced compliance and may increase the likelihood of drug diversion.

    “The complexity of multiple daily dosing schedules contributes to reduced compliance and may increase the likelihood of drug diversion.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The classroom and play settings in the analog classroom are generally comparable to those regularly experienced by the children in school.

    “the general comparability of classroom and play settings to those regularly experienced by the children in school”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample size was larger than in prior analog classroom studies.

    “a larger sample size than in prior analog classroom studies”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few studies have systematically assessed the time-action effects of psychostimulants for as long as 12 hours postdose.

    “Few studies have attempted to assess systematically the time-action effects of any psychostimulant for effects as prolonged as 12 hours postdose.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Optimal dose levels for individual subjects vary considerably among individuals.

    “which are well known to vary considerably among individuals”
7 of 7

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?

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.

  • Table 1 calls all 51 children the randomized sample

    Minor

    Table 1 labels its 51-patient group the randomized sample, whereas the Results state that only 49 children were randomized.

  • Completion percentage uses the wrong denominator

    Minor

    The sentence identifies 49 randomized subjects, but 47 of 49 is 95.9%, not 92.2%. The reported percentage instead uses all 51 enrolled children as its denominator.

    Reported 92.2 · recomputed 95.918367

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arnold, 2000, Methylphenidate versus amphetamine: a comparative review, 127

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MCCRACKEN, J. T., BIEDERMAN, J., GREENHILL, L. L., SWANSON, J. M., MCGOUGH, J. J., SPENCER, T. J., POSNER, K., WIGAL, S., PATAKI, C., ZHANG, Y., & TULLOCH, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
MCCRACKEN, JAMES T.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
673-683
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052824975
Cited by
116
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Keywords
Adderall XR, amphetamine, once-daily formulation, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, duration of action, dose dependence, classroom behavior, mathematics achievement, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics
MeSH terms
Amphetamines, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Delayed-Action Preparations, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Male, Schools, Time, Cross-Over Studies

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 2026-10-10.

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

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