Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-52411713EnglishN2025July12Healthcare
A Systematic Review of the Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Atomoxetine and Methylphenidate in the Treatment of Adults with ADHD
English0105Maria SitkoEnglish Dominika StolarczykEnglish Aleksandra BakEnglish Katarzyna AgopsowiczEnglish Anna BieniaszEnglish Anna ZdziebloEnglish Katarzyna Zdzieb?oEnglish Michalina PiwowarEnglish Katarzyna BlicharzEnglish Martyna BiernackaEnglish
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common mental disorder caused by abnormal regulation of noradrenergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission. In some patients, symptoms persist throughout life, making each area of daily living challenging and impairing overall functioning. In addition to psychotherapy, treatment includes pharmacotherapy in the form of psychostimulants (amphetamine and methylphenidate) and non-stimulants (atomoxetine). The function of the drugs is to improve neurotransmission and reduce symptoms. The purpose of this article is to compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of methylphenidate and atomoxetine for adult ADHD patients. A systematic literature search was performed using databases such as PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. 31 clinical trials were included, 10 concerned the effect of methylphenidate, 8 the atomoxetine and the remaining studies effectiveness of both of them. A comparative analysis of the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine indicates their effectiveness in reducing symptoms among adults with ADHD. Atomoxetine was shown to be superior in reducing hyperkinetic symptoms and in patients with severe symptoms. Both drugs are well tolerated and safe to use.
EnglishADHD, methylphenidate (MPH), Atomoxetine, Adults, Side effects, Effectiveness, Psychostimulants, Non-stimulant medicationhttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4863http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4863
1. Ayano G, Demelash S, Gizachew Y, Tsegay L, Alati R. The global prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in
children and adolescents: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. 2023;339:860-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/37495084/
2. Gondek TM, Stramecki F, Cie?la M. Diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in adults with ADHD. Pers Psychiatry.
2024;3(3):43-73. https://www.termedia.pl/Diagnostyka-i-postepowanie- terapeutyczne-u-doroslych-z-ADHD-Rekomendacje-
Sekcji-Ksztalcenia-Specjalizacyjnego-Polskiego-Towarzystwa-Psychiatrycznego-i-koalicji-organizacji-na-rzecz-osob-z-ADHD- 2024-r-,169,54745,1,1.html
3. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 4158, Methylphenidate. 2025.
Available from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ Methylphenidate
4. Fedder D, Patel H, Saadabadi A. Atomoxetine. In: StatPearls[Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29630286/
5. Rabiey A, Hassani-Abharian P, Farhad M, Moravveji AR, Akasheh G, Banafshe HR. Atomoxetine efficacy in methamphetamine dependence during methadone maintenance therapy. Arch Iran Med. 2019;22(12):692-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/31823620/
6. Philip A, Lena J, Rachel H, Tom F, Andrew F, Sheila H, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the short-term effects of OROSmethylphenidate on ADHD symptoms and behavioural outcomesin young male prisoners (CIAO-II). Trials. 2019;20(1):663. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791384/
7. Goodman DW, Starr HL, Ma YW, Rostain AL, Ascher S, Armstrong RB. Randomized, placebo-controlled study of individualized dosing of OROS methylphenidate for adult ADHD. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(1):105-114.
8. Weiss MD, Childress AC, Donnelly GAE. Efficacy and safety of PRC-063 in adults with ADHD. J Atten Disord.
2021;25(10):1417-28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/31916473/
9. López-Pinar C, Rosen H, Selaskowski B, Staerk C, Jans T, Retz W et al. Adherence to therapy and clinical outcomes in adults with ADHD: Results from the COMPAS trial. Psychother Psychosom. 2024;93(1):46-64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/38142690/
10. Mowinckel AM, Alnæs D, Pedersen ML, Ziegler S, Fredriksen M, Kaufmann T et al. Increased default-mode variability in
adults with ADHD. Neuroimage Clin. 2017;16:369-82. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28861338/
11. Biederman J, Fried R, Tarko L, Surman C, Spencer T, Pope A et al. Memantine for executive function deficits in adults with ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2017;21(4):343-52. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24970718/
12. Surman C, Ceranoglu A, Vaudreuil C, Albright B, Uchida M, Yule A et al. L-Methylfolate supplementation with methylphenidate: RCT evidence. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2019;39(1):28- 38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30566416/
13. Tamminga HGH, Reneman L, Schrantee A, Bottelier MA, Bouziane C, Geurts HM et al. Methylphenidate effects on cognition beyond treatment. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021;46:1-13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33735707/
14. Weiss MD, Childress AC, Donnelly GAE. PRC-063 in adults with ADHD: 6-month extension. J Atten Disord. 2021;25(10):1417-
28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31916473/ 15. Shram MJ, Setnik B, Webster L, Guenther S, Mickle TC, Braeckman
R et al. Abuse potential of serdexmethylphenidate: Oral, IN, IV. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;38(7):1237-50. https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35570699/
16. Cataldo M, Donnelly G, Cutler AJ, Childress A, Mikl J, Bhaskar S et al. Sleep diary analysis in PRC-063 studies in ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2022;26(14):1870-81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/35786058/
17. Heffner JL, Lewis DF, Winhusen TM. OROS methylphenidate prevents weight gain during smoking cessation in ADHD adults. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(2):583-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/22955246/
18. Goto T, Hirata Y, Takita Y, Trzepacz PT, Allen AJ, Song DH et al. Atomoxetine in Asian adults with ADHD. J Atten Disord.
2017;21(2):100-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24203774/
19. Tanaka Y, Escobar R, Upadhyaya HP. Atomoxetine in adult ADHD: Geographic response consistency. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2017;9(2):113-20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/28058589/
20. Reimherr FW, Marchant BK, Strong RE, Hedges DW, Adler L, Spencer TJ et al. Emotional dysregulation in adult ADHD and atomoxetine response. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;58(2):125-31. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16038683/
21. Adler LA, Solanto M, Escobar R, Lipsius S, Upadhyaya H.Executive function outcomes with atomoxetine in adult
ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2020; 24(3):363-72. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27521574/
22. Dodson WW. Pharmacotherapy of adult ADHD. J Clin Psychol. 2005;61(5):589-606. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/15723384/
23. Upadhyaya H, Tanaka Y, Lipsius S, Kryzhanovskaya LA, Lane JR, Escobar R et al. Adverse events before/after atomoxetine discontinuation. Postgrad Med. 2015;127(7):677-85. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26329980/
24. Wietecha LA, Ruff DD, Allen AJ, Greenhill LL, Newcorn JH. Atomoxetine tolerability with different dosing in ADHD. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(12):1217-23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/24434090/
25. Ni HC, Lin YJ, Gau SS, Huang HC, Yang LK. Open-label, randomized trial of methylphenidate and atomoxetine. J Atten
Disord. 2017;21(1):27-39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/23475825/
26. Ni HC, Lin YJ, Gau SS, Huang HC, Yang LK. Open-label comparison of methylphenidate and atomoxetine. J Atten Disord. 2017;21(1):27-39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23475825/
27. Ni HC, Hwang Gu SL, Lin HY, Lin YJ, Huang HC, Yang LK. Head-to-head trial: Atomoxetine vs methylphenidate on variability.J Psychopharmacol. 2016;30(5):459-67. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35078957/
28. Ni HC, Shang CY, Gau SS, Lin YJ, Huang HC, Yang LK. Executivefunction in ADHD: Methylphenidate vs atomoxetine. IntJ Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;16(9):1959-73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23672818/
29. Adler LA, Adams J, Madera-McDonough J, Kohegyi E, Hobart M, Chang D et al. Centanafadine for adult ADHD: Phase 3 trials. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022;42(5):429-39. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35652746/
30. Schein J, Cloutier M, Gauthier-Loiselle M, Catillon M, Xu C, Qu A et al. Indirect comparison of centanafadine vs other ADHD treatments. J Comp Eff Res. 2024;13(9):e240089. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39132746/
Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-52411713EnglishN-0001November30Healthcare
Low-Cost Continuous Force Measurement Systems for Quadriceps and Hamstrings Strength Assessment: A Scoping Review and Perspective for Clinical Application in Physiotherapy
English0609Aparna A. BachkaniwalaEnglish Vivek H. RamanandiEnglish Anjan R. DesaiEnglish
Accurate assessment of muscle strength is vital in physiotherapy for diagnosis, prognosis, and evaluating interventions. While methods like manual muscle testing (MMT), handheld dynamometry (HHD), and isokinetic dynamometry exist, limitations such as subjectivity (MMT), examiner influence (HHD), cost, and lack of portability (isokinetic/fixed systems) persist. This scoping review examines the literature on quadriceps and hamstrings strength assessment methods, focusing on the potential, development, and validation requirements of low-cost Continuous Force Measurement Systems (CFMS). A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published between January 2000 and December 2024. Data regarding study design, assessment methods, equipment, psychometric properties, and key findings were extracted and synthesized. The review confirmed the limitations of existing methods and indicated a growing interest and feasibility in developing low-cost CFMS using readily available sensors and microcontrollers. These systems offer the potential for continuous data capture, including Rate of Torque Development (RTD), providing deeper insights into neuromuscular function than peak force alone. Preliminary studies demonstrate promising results for custom-built, affordable systems. Low-cost CFMS presents a promising avenue to enhance quantitative muscle strength assessment in physiotherapy while combining the objectivity with affordability and portability, facilitating wider adoption in clinical practice, education, and research.
EnglishDynamometry, Hamstrings, Low-Cost Technology, Muscle Strength, Physiotherapy, Quadriceps.http://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4864http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4864
1. Bhaskar A, Tharion E, Devasahayam SR. Computer-Based Inexpensive Surface Electromyography Recording for a Student Laboratory. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007 Jun;31(2):242-243.Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17562920/
2. Chamorro C, Armijo-Olivo S, De la Fuente C, Fuentes J, Chirosa LJ. Absolute reliability and concurrent validity of hand held dynamometry and isokinetic dynamometry in the hip, knee and ankle joint: systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Med(Wars). 2017 Oct 17;12:359-375. Available from: https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29071305/
3. Naqvi U, Sherman A l. Muscle Strength Grading [Internet]. Pub- Med. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28613779/
4. Bohannon RW. Manual muscle testing: does it meet the standards of an adequate screening test? Clin Rehabil. 2005
Sep;19(6):662-667. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/16180603/
5. Shirley Ryan Ability Lab. Hand-held Dynamometer / Grip Strength [Internet]. Shirley Ryan Ability Lab. 2014. Available
from: https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/handheld-dynamometer-grip-strength
6. Mindova S, Karaganova I, Stefanova I. Procedural Options for Measuring Muscle Strength. Acta Med. Bulg. 2016 Oct 1;43(2):80-85. https://doi.org/10.1515/amb-2016-0020
7. Mentiplay BF, Perraton LG, Bower KJ, Adair B, Pua YH, Williams GP, et al. Assessment of Lower Limb Muscle Strength
and Power Using Hand-Held and Fixed Dynamometry: A Reliability and Validity Study. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2015 Oct
28;10(10):e0140822. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/26509265/
8. Martin HJ, Yule V, Syddall HE, Dennison EM, Cooper C, Aihie Sayer A. Is Hand-Held Dynamometry Useful for the Measurement of Quadriceps Strength in Older People? A Comparison with the Gold Standard Biodex Dynamometry. Gerontology. 2006;52(3):154-159. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/16645295/
9. Drouin JM, Valovich-McLeod TC, Shultz SJ, Gansneder BM, Perrin DH. Reliability and Validity of the Biodex System 3 Pro Isokinetic Dynamometer velocity, Torque and Position Measurements. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Jan 1;91(1):22-29. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14508689/
10. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, Folland J, Tillin N, Duchateau J. Rate of force development: physiological and
methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Jun;116(6):1091-116. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/26941023/
11. Irmak R, Irmak A. Cost Effective Solution for Educational Tools in Developing Countries: A Pilot Study on Continuous Force Measurement Instrumentation. Turkiye Klinikleri J Sports Sci. 2014 Jan 1;6(1):24-27. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/Cost-Effective-Solution-for-Educational- Tools-in-A-Irmak-Irmak/4bb1162a86008e86b3e161d8a0e0f0a4 ead84752?utm_source=direct_link
12. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphistudy. Qual Life Res. 2010 Feb 19;19(4):539-549. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20169472/
13. Kelln BM, McKeon PO, Gontkof LM, Hertel J. Hand-Held Dynamometry: Reliability of Lower Extremity Muscle Testing
in Healthy, Physically Active, Young Adults. J. Sport Rehabil. 2008 May;17(2):160-170. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/18515915/
14. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre- Poulsen P. Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol. 2002 Oct 1;93(4):1318-1326. Available from: https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12235031/
15. Illera-Domínguez V, Albesa-Albiol L, Castizo-Olier J, Garcia- Fresneda A, Buscà B, Ramirez-Lopez C, et al. Reliability and validity of a low-cost, wireless sensor and smartphone app for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance exercises. PLOS ONE. 2024 Mar 21;19(3):e0298859-9. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0298859
16. Bawa A, Banitsas K. Design Validation of a Low-Cost EMG Sensor Compared to a Commercial-Based System for Measuring Muscle Activity and Fatigue. Sensors. 2022 Aug 3;22(15):5799. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35957354/
17. Gaudet J, Handrigan G. Assessing the Validity and Reliability
of A Low-Cost Microcontroller-Based Load Cell Amplifier for Measuring Lower Limb and Upper Limb Muscular Force. Sensors. 2020 Sep 3;20(17):4999. Available from: https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32899264/