Cited by 31Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentPharmaceutical studies and practices

A network meta-analysis of atomoxetine and osmotic release oral system methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult patients

Bushe, Chris, Day, Kathleen, Reed, Victoria, Karlsdotter, Kristina, Berggren, Lovisa, Pitcher, Ashley, Televantou, Foula, Haynes, Virginia·2016·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The lack of head-to-head clinical studies powered to compare atomoxetine and osmotic release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate necessitates treatment comparison by methods that include indirect evidence such as network meta-analysis (NMA). A NMA assessing the relative treatment effects of atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was conducted. Studies were identified by systematic literature review. Analyses summarised improvements in efficacy, measured by ADHD-specific scales, using Cohen'sdto calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD), and all cause discontinuations. Results showed effect sizes (SMD, 95% credible interval (CrI)) relative to placebo that did not differ significantly between atomoxetine (0.46, 0.36-0.56) and OROS methylphenidate (0.51, 0.40-0.63) in clinical studies of up to 12 weeks' duration (SMD, 95% CrI for atomoxetine versus OROS methylphenidate: -0.05, -0.18-0.08). Patients treated with these medications responded better than those given placebo across all analyses. There was also no significant difference in discontinuation rates between atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate (odds ratio, 95% CrI: 0.85, 0.53-1.35). Between-study heterogeneity was low overall. Results of this NMA suggest that the efficacy of atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate in adults does not differ significantly. Clinical guidelines may require amendment to reflect these recent data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881116636105

Cites

0 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
Bushe, C., Day, K., Reed, V., Karlsdotter, K., Berggren, L., Pitcher, A., Televantou, F., & Haynes, V.
Affiliations
  • Eli Lilly, Windlesham, UK
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Eli Lilly (Germany) (DE)
  • IQVIA (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Bushe, Chris
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2016-03-22
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
444-458
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W2320331035
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
atomoxetine, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adult ADHD, stimulant medication, drug efficacy comparison, treatment discontinuation, placebo response
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Humans, Methylphenidate, 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