What is known and Objective
Attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms usually impairs academic achievement and can trigger the onset of medication. Methylphenidate is a drug widely prescribed to treat ADHD. However, systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials suggest that it does not lead to great improvements in academic performance. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the evidence on the “real‐world” effectiveness of methylphenidate in improving the academic achievement of ADHD students.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies retrieved from five electronic databases, besides a manual search and search in grey literature. Studies evaluating treatment with methylphenidate compared to no treatment or other pharmacological/non‐pharmacological alternatives used in ADHD were included. The risk of bias of the selected studies was assessed using adapted versions of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale.
Results and Discussion
Nine studies (from ten reports) were included in the review: four cohorts, two before‐and‐after designs and three cross‐sectional studies. They involved 12,269 children and adolescents aged 6–18 years. The doses of methylphenidate ranged from 10 to 72 mg/day, and the duration of the treatment from 2.6 months to 4.25 years. Five of these studies concluded that methylphenidate improves academic performance. However, three of the four lowest‐bias risk studies concluded that the drug is ineffective. Five studies assessed the long‐term use of methylphenidate, and four of them concluded that it does not result in better outcomes in the school setting. Most included studies had considerable limitations and significant heterogeneity regarding methodological design and academic performance measurement criteria.
What is new and Conclusion
Although some studies indicate that the short‐term use of methylphenidate may improve outcomes in the school environment, the available evidence does not support the establishment of adequate conclusions about the real benefits of methylphenidate in the academic improvement of ADHD students.
Objective: Conduct effective sensory method on three nail strengtheners with different packaging and pharmaceutical forms commercialised in Brazil. Methods: Two affective tests, of acceptance and sorting-preference, and a purchase intention test were conducted. The attributes packing appearance, ease of application provided by the packaging and texture and spreadability of the pharmaceutical form were evaluated, using the hedonic scale of 9 points to evaluate the attributes and 5 points to assess the intention of buying. The sensory panel was composed of 32 judges, consumers or potential consumers. Results: On the acceptance test, the pen with emulsion pharmaceutical form obtained was most preferred on the appearance of the package (7.88) and ease of application (7.72) attributes. The sample most preferred on texture and spreadability attribute was the nail polish bottle with brush containing enamel base pharmaceutical form (8.06), followed by pen bottle containing emulsion (6.75) and dropper bottle containing oil as pharmaceutical form (5.41) respectively, with statistical significance (p<0.05). All samples were higher with significant difference (p<0.05) compared with the dropper bottle containing oil on purchase intent.Conclusion: It was demonstrated that pen bottle had the highest preference on package appearance and ease of application attributes and the enamel base pharmaceutical form had the highest preference in the texture and spreadability attribute. The nail polish bottle containing the pharmaceutical form enamel base showed the highest preference in purchase intention and sorting-preference test.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.