Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24074240›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2013

Long-acting methylphenidate formulations in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review of head-to-head studies.

David Coghill, Tobias Banaschewski, Alessandro Zuddas, Antonio Pelaz, Antonella Gagliano, Manfred Doepfner

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. The effect of methylphenidate on social cognition and oxytocin in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2020
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. tDCS and neurofeedback in ADHD treatment.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Comparison of the real-world safety of two different long-acting methylphenidate formulations (MedikinetScandinavian journal of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David CoghillDivision of Neuroscience, Medical Research Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. d.r.coghill@dundee.ac.uk.
Tobias Banaschewski
Alessandro Zuddas
Antonio Pelaz
Antonella Gagliano
Manfred Doepfner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe stimulant methylphenidate (MPH) has been a mainstay of treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for many years. Owing to the short half-life and the issues associated with multiple daily dosing of immediate-release MPH formulations, a new generation of long-acting MPH formulations has emerged. Direct head-to-head studies of these long-acting MPH formulations are important to facilitate an evaluation of their comparative pharmacokinetics and efficacy; however, to date, relatively few head-to-head studies have been performed.The objective of this systematic review was to compare the evidence available from head-to-head studies of long-acting MPH formulations and provide information that can guide treatment selection.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and PsycINFO in March 2012 using the MeSH terms: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity/drug therapy; methylphenidate/therapeutic use and All Fields: Concerta; Ritalin LA; OROS and ADHD; Medikinet; Equasym XL and ADHD; long-acting methylphenidate; Diffucaps and ADHD; SODAS and methylphenidate. No filters were applied and no language, publication date or publication status limitations were imposed. Articles were selected if the title indicated a comparison of two or more long-acting MPH preparations in human subjects of any age; non-systematic review articles and unpublished data were not included.

resultsOf 15,295 references returned in the literature search and screened by title, 34 articles were identified for inclusion: nine articles from pharmacokinetic studies (nine studies); nine articles from laboratory school studies (six studies); two articles from randomized controlled trials (two studies); three articles from switching studies (two studies) and three articles from one observational study.

conclusionsEmerging head-to-head studies provide important data on the comparative efficacy of the formulations available. At a group level, efficacy across the day generally follows the pharmacokinetic profile of the MPH formulation. No formulation is clearly superior to another; careful consideration of patient needs and subtle differences between formulations is required to optimize treatment. For patients achieving suboptimal symptom control, switching long-acting MPH formulations may be beneficial. When switching formulations, it is usually appropriate to titrate the immediate-release component of the formulation; a limitation of current studies is a focus on total daily dose rather than equivalent immediate-release components. Further studies are necessary to provide guidance in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of adults and pre-school children and the impact of comorbidities and symptom severity on treatment response.

Indexed as

Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityCentral Nervous System StimulantsChildDelayed-Action PreparationsDrug Administration ScheduleHumansMethylphenidateSchoolsTreatment OutcomeCentral Nervous System StimulantsDelayed-Action PreparationsMethylphenidate

Identifiers

PMID24074240
PMCPMC3852277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.