-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2021Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of accidents and injuries in children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However,... (Review)
Review
Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of accidents and injuries in children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, little is known about how accident risk may alter over the lifespan. Additionally, it would be important to know if the most common types of accidents and injuries differ in ADHD patients over different age groups. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of an ameliorating effect of ADHD medication on accident risk. Lastly, the underlying risk factors and causal mechanisms behind increased accident risk remain unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review focusing on the above described research questions. Our results suggested that accident/injury type and overall risk changes in ADHD patients over the lifespan. ADHD medication appeared to be similarly effective at reducing accident risk in all age groups. However, studies with direct comparisons of accident/injuries and effects of medication at different age groups or in old age are still missing. Finally, comorbidities associated with ADHD such as substance abuse appear to further increase the accident/injury risk.
Topics: Accidents; Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Comorbidity; Humans; Longevity; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33582234
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.002 -
The Physician and Sportsmedicine Nov 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We hypothesize that topical NSAIDs will be safe and effective for relieving symptoms in patients with knee OA.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Randomized control trials that investigated topical NSAIDs that are widely available in many countries against both placebo and active controls in primary knee osteoarthritis were included. Studies that investigated other treatment modalities or treated nonspecific OA were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed to quantify the effect sizes and heterogeneity of the NSAIDs used.
RESULTS
Upon initial search, 259 records were identified with 18 studies remaining after duplicate removal, abstract, and full-text screening. All NSAIDs demonstrated statistically significant reduction in at least one parameter of OA symptoms. The majority of included studies (66.7%) evaluated diclofenac. In the meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMD) of topical NSAIDs versus placebo were calculated and interpreted as having moderate effect size for improvement in pain (0.365, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.240, 0.490) and physical function (0.354, 95% CI 0.268, 0.493). With regard to safety, studies that used patches or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the carrier reported a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) than other carriers. Skin AEs were higher in the treatment group than the placebo group and gastrointestinal AEs were lower in the treatment group than placebo.
CONCLUSION
Topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are the most rigorously studied topical NSAIDs in the treatment of knee OA and have demonstrated the most significant reduction in pain and improvement of function. Ibuprofen was effective for pain relief and physical function improvement, but more high-powered studies are needed to make a confident comparison of efficacy. Additionally, the 'carrier' used to deliver the topical NSAID has an impact on the adverse event profile. This has safety implications for prescribers and pharmaceutical development. Topical diclofenac is widely available internationally and is the only topical NSAID approved for over-the-counter use in the US. It should be recommended to patients as a first-line conservative management for OA of the knee.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain
PubMed: 33554694
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2021.1886573 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews May 2021Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders worldwide, and in the majority of patients persists into... (Review)
Review
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders worldwide, and in the majority of patients persists into adulthood. However, it remains unclear how maternal ADHD could affect pregnancy and birth as well as early mother-(father)-child interaction. There are several studies investigating the effect of depressed or anxious parents on parent-child-interactions in early infancy, but data about the influence of parental ADHD is lacking although it is a common mental disorder in parents. Additionally, the prescription of stimulant and other ADHD medication for adult ADHD patients is rising due to improved diagnostic procedures and a greater awareness of this disorder in adulthood among psychiatrists and psychologists. However, this leads to increased numbers of treated ADHD women that wish to have children or experience unplanned pregnancies while taking stimulant medication. In our systematic review we aimed at analysing the current evidence for the association of maternal ADHD with pregnancy and birth outcomes, pregnancy risks and health behaviour in pregnancy, as well as the association of parental ADHD with early parent-child interaction and early child development in the first 3 years. Furthermore, we reviewed recent evidence on the risks of stimulant and non-stimulant treatment for ADHD in pregnancy and lactation.
Topics: Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Female; Humans; Methylphenidate; Parent-Child Relations; Parents; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33516734
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.002 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2021It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.
STUDY DESIGN
A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.
RESULTS
A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.
Topics: Analgesia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33515678
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.01.005 -
Complementary Medicine Research 2021This study aimed to assess the efficacy of acupuncture for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to assess the efficacy of acupuncture for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of acupuncture treatment (AT) with pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate hydrochloride, MPH) among patients with ADHD. A total of 12 electronic databases were searched from inception until February 3, 2020. The main outcomes were the effective rate and post-treatment hyperactivity scores. We also assessed the incidence of adverse events and follow-up course.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies involving 876 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis revealed that AT yielded a significantly higher effective rate than MPH (odds ratio 2.239, 95% CI 1.438-3.487, p < 0.001, 8 studies), and that AT can reduce the hyperactivity scores to a lesser degree than MPH (standardized mean difference = -0.882, 95% CI -1.295 to -0.469, p < 0.001, 3 studies). Two studies reported no adverse events in the AT group, while one study suggested that AT can reduce adverse drug reactions. Furthermore, 3 studies concluded that the effects of AT were maintained, even after completion of treatment.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that AT may be more beneficial than MPH therapy for ADHD patients. However, the evidence may be highly limited, especially considering the outcome of hyperactivity scores with the high risk of bias, very low GRADE, and small number of studies. Thus, further studies of rigorous design and high quality are needed to confirm and strengthen the results, especially in the Western part of the world. Additionally, well-designed randomized controlled trials that evaluate adverse events and include a long-term follow-up should be conducted to determine the efficacy, safety, and side effects of AT for ADHD in children and adolescents.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Humans; Methylphenidate; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 33508834
DOI: 10.1159/000513655 -
Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience :... Jan 2021Depression is a common morbidity after traumatic brain injury. This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depression is a common morbidity after traumatic brain injury. This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for depression after traumatic brain injury.
METHODS
We extracted randomized controlled trials examining pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions with placebo- or active-controlled designs from PubMed, the Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect, from inception to October 30, 2018. We based study selection and extraction of a predefined list of variables on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and conducted meta-analysis procedures using random effects modelling. Primary outcomes were changes in depressive symptom severity after pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment; the secondary outcome was tolerability, reflected in overall patient dropout rates.
RESULTS
Our analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials (10 pharmacologic, total n = 483, mean age = 37.9 yr; 17 nonpharmacologic, total n = 1083, mean age = 38.0 yr) showed that methylphenidate had significantly superior efficacy compared to placebo or control (standardized mean difference -0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.49 to -0.33). Sertraline was associated with significantly lower tolerability (i.e., a higher dropout rate) compared to placebo or control (odds ratio 2.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.54). No nonpharmacologic treatment was more effective than the others, and we found no significant differences in tolerability (i.e., dropout rates) among the nonpharmacologic treatments.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity in participant characteristics (e.g., comorbidities), study designs (e.g., trial duration) and psychopathology assessment tools, as well as small trial numbers for some treatment arms, could have been confounders.
CONCLUSION
The present network meta-analysis suggests that methylphenidate might be the best pharmacologic intervention for depressive symptoms related to traumatic brain injury. None of the nonpharmacologic interventions was associated with better improvement in depressive symptoms than the others or than control conditions. None of the pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatments had inferior tolerability compared to placebo or controls except for sertraline, which had significantly lower tolerability than placebo.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Methylphenidate; Network Meta-Analysis; Neurotransmitter Uptake Inhibitors; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 33497170
DOI: 10.1503/jpn.190122 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Anxiety; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bias; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depression; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Flavonoids; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Male; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Placebos; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33460048
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013011.pub2 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Mar 2021To assess the empirical evidence for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in populations with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
AIM
To assess the empirical evidence for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in populations with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
METHODS
A systemic PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, and Medline database search of peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Included in the review were controlled trials published in English with sample sizes ⩾10 participants examining the safety and efficacy of anti-ADHD medication in ASD populations. Data was extracted on relevant variables of study design, demographics, associated psychopathology, medication dose, efficacy, and tolerability.
RESULTS
Nine controlled trials met the inclusion and exclusion criteria: five with methylphenidate, three with atomoxetine, and one with guanfacine. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 128 with 430 children participating across all the trials. In all the trials, treatment response was significantly superior to placebo. However, almost all trials assessed only hyperactivity, and most included only participants with intellectual disability with high levels of irritability. None of the trials distinguished agitation from hyperactivity. The response on hyperactivity for methylphenidate and atomoxetine was less than that observed in the neurotypical population; however, the response for guanfacine surpassed results observed in neurotypical populations. Treatment-emergent mood lability (i.e. mood dysregulation and mood-related adverse events) was frequently associated with methylphenidate and guanfacine treatments. Worse treatment outcomes were associated with individuals with lower intellectual capability compared with those with higher IQs.
CONCLUSIONS
here is a scarcity of controlled trials examining ADHD treatments in ASD populations, particularly in intellectually capable individuals with ASD and in adults. Response to ADHD medications in ASD were adversely moderated by the presence of intellectual disability and mood lability.
Topics: Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Guanfacine; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Methylphenidate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33349107
DOI: 10.1177/0269881120972336 -
Hip International : the Journal of... Mar 2022Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as the formation of lamellar bone in extraskeletal soft tissues. HO can be a severe complication after hip arthroplasty but can...
BACKGROUND
Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as the formation of lamellar bone in extraskeletal soft tissues. HO can be a severe complication after hip arthroplasty but can possibly be prevented by postoperative treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or radiotherapy. Diclofenac is 1 of the most used drugs in HO prophylaxis because it is effective and long established. However, there is still no uniform therapy regimen in terms of duration, dose and side effect profile regarding the application of diclofenac in HO prevention. We have, therefore, conducted the first systematic review investigating diclofenac for HO prophylaxis after hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy, dose and duration of diclofenac therapy in preventing HO after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
METHODS
According to the PRISMA Guidelines we performed a systematic literature search in EMBASE via Ovid, in MEDLINE via PubMed and in the Cochrane Library addressing all studies in English and German regarding the prophylaxis of HO with diclofenac after THA. We identified 731 potential studies and included 6 randomised controlled trials with 957 patients.
RESULTS
The studies were heterogeneous with regard to duration of therapy, dose, comparative group and follow-up period. The therapy duration ranged from 9 to 42 days, the applied diclofenac doses ranged from 75 mg to 150 mg daily. Patients treated with diclofenac showed a significant reduction in the total incidence of HO regarding to the Brooker Classification compared to placebo and no clinically relevant ossifications occured (Brooker III and IV).
CONCLUSIONS
Diclofenac is efficacious in the prevention of HO and can be used routinely after THA. The existing data indicates that a minimum dose of 75 mg diclofenac per day started on the first postoperative day for a minimum of 9 days is needed to prevent HO with an acceptable incidence of side effects, such as gastrointestinal symptoms.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Diclofenac; Humans; Incidence; Ossification, Heterotopic
PubMed: 33272062
DOI: 10.1177/1120700020978194 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Feb 2021Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) studies of the neural correlates of medication treatment in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) studies of the neural correlates of medication treatment in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have not been systematically reviewed. Our objective was to systematically identify, assess and summarize within-subject R-fMRI studies of pharmacological-induced changes in patients with ADHD. We critically appraised strengths and limitations, and provide recommendations for future research.
METHOD
Systematic review of published original reports in English meeting criteria in pediatric and adult patients with ADHD up to July 1, 2020. A thorough search preceded selection of studies matching prespecified criteria. Strengths and limitations of selected studies, regarding design and reporting, were identified based on current best practices.
RESULTS
We identified and reviewed 9 studies (5 pediatric and 4 adult studies). Sample sizes were small-medium (16-38 patients), and included few female participants. Medications were methylphenidate, amphetamines, and atomoxetine. Wide heterogeneity was observed in designs, analyses and results, which could not be combined quantitatively. Qualitatively, the multiplicity of brain regions and networks identified, some of which correlated with clinical improvements, do not support a coherent mechanistic hypothesis of medication effects. Overall, reports did not meet current standards to ensure reproducibility.
CONCLUSION
In this emerging field, the few studies using R-fMRI to analyze the neural correlates of medications in patients with ADHD suggest a potential modulatory effect of stimulants and atomoxetine on several intrinsic brain activity metrics. However, methodological heterogeneity and reporting issues need to be addressed in future research to validate findings which may contribute to clinical care. Such a goal is not yet at hand.
Topics: Adult; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Brain; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Methylphenidate; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 33137412
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.10.013