↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
104 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
11 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009996.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salima Punja, Larissa Shamseer, Lisa Hartling, Liana Urichuk, Ben Vandermeer, Jane Nikles, Sunita Vohra

Abstract

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common psychiatric conditions affecting children and adolescents. Amphetamines are among the most commonly prescribed medications to manage ADHD. There are three main classes of amphetamines: dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine and mixed amphetamine salts, which can be further broken down into short- and long-acting formulations. A systematic review assessing their efficacy and safety in this population has never been conducted. To assess the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for ADHD in children and adolescents. In August 2015 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified by the searches. No language or date restrictions were applied. Parallel-group and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amphetamine derivatives against placebo in a pediatric population (< 18 years) with ADHD. Two authors independently extracted data on participants, settings, interventions, methodology, and outcomes for each included study. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and for dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR). Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We also performed a meta-analysis of the most commonly reported adverse events in the primary studies. We included 23 trials (8 parallel-group and 15 cross-over trials), with 2675 children aged three years to 17 years. All studies compared amphetamines to placebo. Study durations ranged from 14 days to 365 days, with the majority lasting less than six months. Most studies were conducted in the United States; three studies were conducted across Europe. We judged 11 included studies to be at a high risk of bias due to insufficient blinding methods, failing to account for dropouts and exclusions from the analysis, and failing to report on all outcomes defined a priori. We judged the remaining 12 studies to be at unclear risk of bias due to inadequate reporting.Amphetamines improved total ADHD core symptom severity according to parent ratings (SMD -0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.86 to -0.27; 7 studies; 1247 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence), teacher ratings (SMD -0.55; 95% CI -0.83 to -0.27; 5 studies; 745 children/adolescents; low quality evidence), and clinician ratings (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.36; 3 studies; 813 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence). In addition, the proportion of responders as rated by the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) scale was higher when children were taking amphetamines (RR 3.36; 95% CI 2.48 to 4.55; 9 studies; 2207 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence).The most commonly reported adverse events included decreased appetite, insomnia/trouble sleeping, abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, headaches, and anxiety. Amphetamines were associated with a higher proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite (RR 6.31; 95% CI 2.58 to 15.46; 11 studies; 2467 children/adolescents), insomnia (RR 3.80; 95% CI 2.12 to 6.83; 10 studies; 2429 children/adolescents), and abdominal pain (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.00; 10 studies; 2155 children/adolescents). In addition, the proportion of children who experienced at least one adverse event was higher in the amphetamine group (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.44; 6 studies; 1742 children/adolescents; low quality evidence).We performed subgroup analyses for amphetamine preparation (dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts), amphetamine release formulation (long acting versus short acting), and funding source (industry versus non industry). Between-group differences were observed for proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite in both the amphetamine preparation (P < 0.00001) and amphetamine release formulation (P value = 0.008) subgroups, as well as for retention in the amphetamine release formulation subgroup (P value = 0.03). Most of the included studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low on most outcomes. Although amphetamines seem efficacious at reducing the core symptoms of ADHD in the short term, they were associated with a number of adverse events. This review found no evidence that supports any one amphetamine derivative over another, and does not reveal any differences between long-acting and short-acting amphetamine preparations. Future trials should be longer in duration (i.e. more than 12 months), include more psychosocial outcomes (e.g. quality of life and parent stress), and be transparently reported.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 389 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 12%
Student > Bachelor 41 10%
Researcher 37 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 7%
Other 71 18%
Unknown 140 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 22%
Psychology 59 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 7%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 3%
Other 43 11%
Unknown 154 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. 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 19 July 2024.
All research outputs
#351,769
of 26,735,161 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#564
of 13,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,062
of 410,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,735,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 410,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.