Cited by 46Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsPharmacology and Obesity Treatment

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine, Mixed Amphetamine Salts, Methylphenidate, and Modafinil in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Stuhec, Matej, Lukić, Petar, Locatelli, Igor·2019·Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Objective Psychostimulants are the first-line treatment in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine (LDX), mixed amphetamine salts (MASs), modafinil (MDF), and methylphenidate (MPH) in comparison with placebo. Data sources We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov in May 2016, along with CENTRAL and EU Clinical Trials Register in February 2016, for the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials conducted on adults diagnosed with ADHD. Study selection and data extraction Substantial comorbidity, substance abuse or dependence, and nonpharmacological interventions represented grounds for exclusion. Published reports were the sole source for data extraction. Improvement in ADHD symptoms was the primary outcome. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Data synthesis The search retrieved 701 records, of which 20 studies were eligible for analysis. High effect size (expressed as SMD) in reducing ADHD symptoms was observed for LDX (-0.89; 95% CI = -1.09, -0.70), whereas MASs (-0.64; 95% CI = -0.83, -0.45) and MPH (-0.50; 95% CI = -0.58, -0.41) reduced symptoms moderately compared with placebo. No efficacy was shown for MDF (0.08; 95% CI; -0.18, 0.34). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: In this meta-analysis, the efficacy,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1060028018795703

Cites

13 of 13 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
Stuhec, M., Lukić, P., & Locatelli, I.
Affiliations
  • Ormoz Psychiatric Hospital, Department of clinical pharmacy, Ormoz, Slovenia, European Union
  • University of Ljubljana (SI)
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Published
2018-08-17
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
121-133
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
OpenAlex
W2886241630
Cited by
46
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Pharmacotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Keywords
adult ADHD, lisdexamfetamine, mixed amphetamine salts, methylphenidate, modafinil, psychostimulants, ADHD symptom reduction, treatment efficacy, tolerability, acceptability, placebo comparison
MeSH terms
Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Modafinil, Adult, Amphetamine, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Methylphenidate, Salts, Treatment Outcome

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