Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 27;2023(3):CD009885. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009885.pub3

Tannock 1989.

Study characteristics
Methods Within‐participant, cross‐over trial with 3 interventions:
  • MPH 0.3 mg/kg

  • MPH 1 mg/kg

  • Placebo


2 different drug conditions each day
Participants Number of participants screened: 16
Number of participants included: 12
Number of participants followed up: 12 (10 boys, 2 girls)
Number of withdrawals: none
Diagnosis of ADHD: DSM‐III ADD‐H (equivalent to 'combined' in later classifications)
Age: mean 8.4 years (range 6‐11)
IQ: mean 105
MPH‐naive: 5 received MPH previously. 3 were taking MPH at the time of referral and had a 48‐h pre‐trial washout
Ethnicity: not stated
Country: Canada
Setting: outpatient clinic
Comorbidity: ODD (n = 4), learning difficulties (n = 8; according to school record and defined as < 25th percentile on ≥ 1 subtests within the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT‐R))
Comedication: not stated
Other sociodemographics: none
Inclusion criteria
  • Thought by referring physician to have ADHD

  • Confirmed through assessment by 2 child psychiatrists using the PICS Questionnaire

  • Confirmed by teacher information on Conners' Teacher Questionnaire, Rutter B Questionnaire and the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham Questionnaire


Exclusion criteria
  • Full‐scale WISC‐R < 80

  • Exclusive diagnosis of emotional or CD; major neurological, physical or sensory impairment; and/or any contraindication for use of MPH (e.g. tics, seizures, heart disease)

Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 possible drug condition orders of 0.3 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg MPH and placebo
Mean MPH dosage: not stated.
Administration schedule: interval of 4 h separated morning and afternoon doses
Duration of each medication condition: not stated
Washout before trial initiation: 4 h
Titration period: none
Treatment compliance: not stated
Outcomes Non‐serious AEs
  • Treatment‐emergent side effects (e.g. stomach distress, pallor, mood swings, tics)

  • Pulse and BP readings taken in sitting position immediately before medication and again 1 h after administration of dose

Notes Sample calculation: not stated
Ethics approval: not stated
Key conclusions of trial authors
  • Behavioural and academic improvements produced by a dose of 0.3 mg/kg in the morning were no longer evident in the afternoon

  • 1 mg/kg MPH produced behavioural improvements that were clinically and statistically discernible in the afternoon, although academic improvements had dissipated

  • Carryover effects of MPH into the afternoon were discernible with 1.0 mg/kg but not with 0.3 mg/kg


Comment from review authors
  • Outcomes for ADHD symptoms were not appropriate for this trial, so only adverse effects were examined


Exclusion of MPH non‐responders/children who have previously experienced AEs while taking MPH before randomisation: no
Any withdrawals due to AEs: no
Funding source: Jointly funded by Ontario Mental Health Foundation (Grant Number 963‐86/88) and Health and Welfare Canada (Grant Number 6606‐3166‐42)
Email correspondence with trial authors: sent email to trial authors to ask for additional information but have not received a reply.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "The order of medication condition was randomized with the restrictions that each child receive two different medication conditions each day (e.g. high, low) occur with equal frequency in the morning and afternoon" "The order of these six combinations was randomized for each child"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes Low risk "The methylphenidate and placebo were packaged in coloured gelatin capsules by the hospital pharmacist to avoid detection of dose and taste, packaged in individual envelopes and dispensed by project staff 1 hour before testing"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Not stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk No dropouts
Selection bias (e.g. titration after randomisation → exclusion): no
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol identified