ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2026
Dose-response, net clinical benefit and optimal dose ranges of stimulants in children and adolescents with ADHD: a network meta-analysis.
Article in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stimulant treatment with methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamines (AMP) is first-line for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but quantitative guidance on comparative efficacy and dose selection within licensed dose ranges remains limited. This study aimed to compare dose-response relationships for MPH and AMP and identify dose ranges that balance symptom improvement and adverse event-related discontinuation across benefit-risk preferences. CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase were searched from inception to August 12, 2025 for double-blind randomized trials of fixed-dose MPH or AMP in patients aged 5-18 years with ADHD. A Bayesian random-effects dose-response network meta-analysis estimated symptom change and discontinuation due to adverse events. Benefits and harms were integrated using net clinical benefit (NCB) across a range of risk-preference values to reflect real-world variation in benefit-harm trade-offs. Forty-eight trials (4,964 participants) were included. For both drugs, efficacy increased with dose and then plateaued (approximately 45 mg/day for MPH and 25 mg/day for AMP), while adverse event-related discontinuation rose steadily with higher doses. Across plausible preferences, AMP generally achieved higher maximal NCB than MPH. Under neutral preferences, population-level NCB was highest at approximately 18-46 mg/day for MPH (peak 30-39 mg/day) and 12-26 mg/day for AMP (peak 18-20 mg/day). By combining dose-response modeling with a net clinical benefit translation, we identified preference-sensitive, comparative dose ranges for MPH and AMP to support more transparent stimulant selection and dose titration in routine care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41961095What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.