Methylphenidate versus dexamphetamine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, crossover trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare methylphenidate (MPH) and dexamphetamine (DEX) in a sample of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: A total of 125 children with ADHD received both MPH (0.3 mg/kg twice daily) and DEX (0.15 mg/kg twice daily) for 2 weeks a double-blind, crossover study. Outcome measures were Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised, Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised, a Parent Global Perceptions questionnaire, the Continuous Performance Test, and the Barkley Side Effects Rating Scale. RESULTS: There were significant group mean improvements from baseline score on all measures for both stimulants. On the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised, response was greater on MPH than DEX on the conduct problems and hyperactivity factors, as well as on the hyperactivity index. On the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised, anxiety was the only factor to differ significantly, in favor of MPH. Parents rated 73% of subjects as globally improved on MPH and 69% improved on DEX, compared with baseline. Overall, 46% of parents chose MPH as the preferred drug, compared with 37% who chose DEX. On the Continuous Performance Test, there was no difference in the number of correct responses or errors between the two drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Most children with ADHD improve significantly on both MPH and DEX. There was a slight advantage to MPH on most measures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Treatment responses from different patients are widely different in terms of the types of pharmacological treatments, dosage requirements, tolerability, response rates, and adverse-event profiles.
“evidence from a large body of studies showed that treatment responses from different patients are widely different in terms of the types of pharmacological treatments, dosage requirements, tolerability, response rates, and adverse-event profiles (Spencer et al., 1996; Efron et al., 1997; Pliszka, 2007; Newcorn et al., 2008; Victor et al., 2009; Wilens et al., 2011; Hodgkins et al., 2012).”
From A Review of Heterogeneity in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (2019) · cites this paper as Efron et al., 1997
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Efron, D., Jarman, F., & Barker, M.
- Affiliations
- Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
- ORCID
- Efron, Daryl
- Venue
- PEDIATRICS
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 1997-12-01
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e6-e6
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2156052216
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Hospital Research Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Keywords
- methylphenidate, d-amphetamine, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, hyperactivity, conduct problems, anxiety, parental preferences, adverse drug reactions
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child, Preschool, Dextroamphetamine, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Parents, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Teaching, Treatment Outcome, 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.
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