Cited by 119Treatment of Major DepressionAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Osmotic-Release Oral System Methylphenidate Augmentation of Antidepressant Monotherapy in Major Depressive Disorder: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Ravindran, Arun V., Kennedy, Sidney H., O'Donovan, M. Claire, Fallu, Angelo, Camacho, Fernando, Binder, Carin E.·2008·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving a stable oral antidepressant regimen. Method This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 5-week trial enrolled 145 subjects who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and who had failed 1 to 3 previous antidepressant monotherapies (including current antidepressant) of adequate dose and duration. Augmentation therapy was initiated with 18 mg of OROS methylphenidate and increased to a maximum dose of 54 mg of OROS methylphenidate until an optimal dose was achieved. Efficacy scales included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 7 atypical items from the 31-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale, the CGI-Improvement scale (CGI-I), the Sex Effects scale, the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale, and the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). Subjects were recruited at 17 community and academic centers across Canada. The study was conducted from June 8, 2005, to April 18, 2006. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the groups at endpoint on the MADRS. OROS methylphenidate was superior to placebo in improving apathy and fatigue as measured by the AES and the MAF. Statistically significant differences using mixed-model analysis were observed on the AES…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.v69n0112

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ravindran, A. V., Kennedy, S. H., O'Donovan, M. C., Fallu, A., Camacho, F., & Binder, C. E.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2008-01-15
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
87-94
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987459299
Cited by
119
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
osmotic-release oral system, OROS methylphenidate, major depressive disorder, antidepressant-resistant depression, apathy, fatigue, tolerability, adverse effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Drug Synergism, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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