首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy
【24h】

Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy

机译:长效与短效哌醋甲酯治疗小儿ADHD:比较疗效的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objective To synthesise existing knowledge of the efficacy and safety of long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published in the English language between 1950 and 2012. Reference lists of included studies were checked for additional studies. Study selection Randomised controlled trials of paediatric ADHD patients (18?years), comparing a long-acting methylphenidate form to a short-acting methylphenidate form. Data extraction Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences (SMDs) between treatment groups. Adverse events were compared using risk differences between treatment groups. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis based on the type of long-acting formulation used. Results Thirteen RCTs were included; data from 882 participants contributed to the analysis. Meta-analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on hyperactivity/impulsivity had an SMD of ?0.30 (95% CI ?0.51 to ?0.08) favouring the long-acting forms. In contrast, three studies used teacher ratings to report on hyperactivity and had an SMD of 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.52) favouring the short-acting methylphenidate. In addition, subgroup analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on inattention/overactivity indicate that the osmotic release oral system generation long-acting formulation was favoured with an SMD of ?0.35 (95% CI ?0.52 to ?0.17), while the second generation showed less efficacy than the short-acting formulation with an SMD of 0.42 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.68). The long-acting formulations presented with slightly more total reported adverse events (n=578) as compared with the short-acting formulation (n=566). Conclusions The findings from this systematic review indicate that the long-acting forms have a modest effect on the severity of inattention/overactivity and hyperactivity/impulsivity according to parent reports, whereas the short-acting methylphenidate was preferred according to teacher reports for hyperactivity.
机译:目的总结关于长效与短效哌醋甲酯治疗小儿注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的有效性和安全性的现有知识。设计系统的审查和荟萃分析。数据源对CENTRAL,MEDLINE,PreMEDLINE,CINAHL,EMBASE,PsychINFO,Scopus和Web of Science进行电子文献检索,以查找1950年至2012年之间以英语发表的文章。对其中包括的研究的参考文献清单进行了其他研究的检查。研究选择儿童ADHD患者(<18岁)的随机对照试验,比较了长效哌醋甲酯和短效哌醋甲酯。数据提取两位作者独立选择试验,提取数据并评估偏倚风险。使用治疗组之间的标准化均值差(SMD)比较连续结果。使用治疗组之间的风险差异比较不良事件。通过亚组分析,根据所使用的长效制剂的类型,探索了异质性。结果纳入了13项RCT;来自882名参与者的数据有助于分析。对三项研究的荟萃分析(使用父母评分来报告多动/冲动)的SMD为0.30(95%CI为0.51至0.08),有利于长效形式。相比之下,三项研究使用教师评分来报告多动症,其SMD为0.29(95%CI为0.05至0.52),有利于短效哌醋甲酯。此外,对三项使用父母评分来报告注意力不集中/过度活动的研究的亚组分析表明,渗透释放口腔系统生成长效制剂的SMD为0.35(95%CI为0.52至0.17)。第二代药物的功效比短效制剂的SMD为0.42(95%CI为0.17至0.68)低。与短效制剂(n = 566)相比,长效制剂的总不良反应(n = 578)略多。结论这项系统评价的结果表明,根据父母的报告,长效形式对注意力不集中/过度活跃和多动症/冲动的严重程度有适度的影响,而根据老师的报告,多动性哌醋甲酯是首选的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号