↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 policy source
10 X users
7 Wikipedia pages


85 Dimensions

Readers on

328 Mendeley
Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007990.pub3
Pubmed ID

Sydney T Osland, Thomas DL Steeves, Tamara Pringsheim


This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics. In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies. We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs. We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine. Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 327 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 9%
Researcher 24 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 61 19%
Unknown 129 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 9%
Psychology 19 6%
Neuroscience 13 4%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Other 35 11%
Unknown 147 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 342,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.