Anne Fleur Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam

CHAPTER 2 42 Supplementary material Table E2.1 Summary of included studies Author, year N Mean age (SD) Design Titration on academic outcome? Relevant academic measures Academic tasks Mediators and moderators Included in meta-analysis If not: reason and results (Childress, Kollins, Cutler, Marraffino, & Sikes, 2017)** 39 (PLA) 43 (MPH) 9.2 (1.75) Between subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 40.8 mg.) No Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 2,3,4,5,8,9,11,12 Yes (Kortekaas- Rijlaarsdam et al., 2017b) 63 10.49 (1.24) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 20.7 mg.) No Math accuracy Math productivity SAT 2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12 Yes (Wigal et al., 2017)** 43 (PLA) 42 (MPH) 9.6 (1.69) Between subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage No Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 2,3,4,5,8,9,10,12 Yes (Froehlich et al., 2014) 46 (PLA) 47 (MPH) 8.1 (1.2) Between subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 28.3 mg.) No Math accuracy Math productivity Math sheet 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 Yes, on-task behavior significantly increased with 10.9% with MPH and mediated the effects of MPH on math productivity (Robb et al., 2014) 39 8.8 (n.a.) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 40 mg.) No Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,3 Yes (Wigal et al., 2014) 20 8.8 (1.9) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose unknown) No Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 3,4,5,8,9,12 Yes (Grizenko, Cai, Jolicoeur, Ter-Stepanian, & Joober, 2013) 198 9.5 (1.9) Within subject design comparing placebo to one fixed dose (0.5 mg/kg) No Math accuracy RAS math 2,3,4,5,8,9,10,12,13,14 Yes (Murray et al., 2011) 68 10.3 (n.a.) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose unknown) No Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13 Yes