Cited by 142Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsSchizophrenia research and treatment

Limits of meta-analysis: methylphenidate in the treatment of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Koesters, M, Becker, T, Kilian, R, Fegert, JM, Weinmann, S·2009·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Abstract Guidelines for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults advocate methylphenidate as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to review the effectiveness of methylphenidate treatment of adult ADHD and to examine the influence of methods on meta-analytic results. Electronic databases were searched to identify clinical trials comparing methylphenidate with placebo in the treatment of adult ADHD. Studies were summarised with meta-analytic methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted with respect to parallel group versus cross-over trials and self versus observer ratings. The relationship between dosage and effect size was explored by weighted regression analysis. The results were tested for publication bias, and several sensitivity analyses were performed. Findings and methods were compared with a previous meta-analysis. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria of which 16 were included in the meta-analysis. The overall effect size (d = 0.42) was significantly different from zero, but was only half the size expected on the basis of a previous meta-analysis. No significant differences could be observed in the subgroup analyses. The regression analysis showed no significant influence of mean daily dose on effect size. These results contradict findings of a previous meta-analysis and challenge guideline recommendations. Methodological issues in meta-analyses are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881108092338

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koesters, M., Becker, T., Kilian, R., Fegert, J., & Weinmann, S.
Affiliations
Universität Ulm (DE)
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2008-06-18
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
733-744
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W2171147935
Cited by
142
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • BERLIN-CHEMIE
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
adult ADHD, methylphenidate, treatment effectiveness, publication bias, dose-response relationship, clinical trial design, treatment guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Humans, Methylphenidate, Sensitivity and Specificity, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Publication Bias

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