## 3 Results
### Psychostimulant and Non-Psychostimulant Medication for ADHD
Thus, in this group, the total scores range from 5 (marked effect) to 4 (moderate effect) after six months, and 3 (slight effect) after one year. At two years the average of total scores remains unchanged. In the group treated with Atomoxetine, the mean of total score starts also from 5 (the patient is severely affected) and there is a significant change at six months after treatment, reaching a mean of total scores of 4 (moderate). There is no improvement at one year or two years after the treatment, the mean of the scores being still 4. Through the comparative analysis of the scores obtained by group 1 and group 2 on the CGI-I scale, we obtained the following results: there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of scores obtained on the CGI-I scale, the component that assesses the patients' clinical improvement status (\(p\) > 0.5). Thus, both types of treatment psychostimulant with Methylphenidate and non-psychostimulant with Atomoxetine are effective in improving ADHD. Comparative Analysis between Group 1 with Psychostimulants and Group 2, Concerning the CGAS Scale Scores, in Different Time Points  
We also assessed the efficacy of drug therapy following the evolution over time of the scores obtained on the CGAS (Table 5). In the group treated with psychostimulants--Methylphenidate, the test started at an operating level of 38%. After the beginning of the intervention, an extremely significant increase in functional level was observed at six months (\(p\) < 0.01), reaching an average of 65%. Moreover, one year after the treatment administration, there was a significant increase in the level of functioning, reaching an average of 73% (\(p\) = 0.011). At two years, the level of operation reached 80%. In the group treated with non-psychostimulants--Atomoxetine, the test started at a level of 39%. After treatment administration, there was a significant increase in the level of functioning (\(p\) < 0.05) reaching 56% after six months. One year after treatment, the increase in the level of functioning was still significant (\(p\) < 0.05), reaching 70%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**CGI-Severity** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Scores Group** \\ **1** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Scores Group** \\ **2** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Scores Group** \\ **\(p\)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Baseline** & 5 & 5 & **0.5** \\
**6 months** & 4 & 4 & **1** \\
**1 year** & 3 & 4 & **0.23** \\
**2 years** & 3 & 4 & **0.23** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparative analysis between group 1 with psychostimulants and group 2, concerning the Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) scale scores, in different time points. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**ADHD** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean Total Scores Obtained in**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean Total Scores Obtained in**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(p\) **p**} \\
**Rating Scale** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**G1—Psychostimulants**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**G2—Non-Psychostimulants**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**G1—Psychostimulants**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**G2—Non-Psychostimulants**} \\ \hline
**Time Point** & **Mean** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std. Deviation** \\ **ation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Min.** & **Max.** & **Mean** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std. Deviation** \\ **ation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Min.** & **Max.** & **Sign** \\ \hline BASELINE & 38\% & 2.32 & 33.00 & 43.00 & 39\% & 2.31 & 35.00 & 46.00 & 0.31 \\
6 Months & 65\% & 2.58 & 60.40 & 69.70 & 56\% & 1.47 & 52.40 & 60.80 & 0.000062 \\
1 Year & 73\% & 1.96 & 70.80 & 78.00 & 70\% & 1.28 & 60.40 & 74.00 & 0.08 \\
2 Years & 80\% & 2.12 & 74.50 & 87.40 & 71\% & 1.85 & 64.39 & 77.78 & 0.000062 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparative analysis between group 1 with psychostimulants and group 2, concerning the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) scale scores, in different time points.