Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
October 17, 2025
Executive function impairment is a key feature of ADHD, with its severity linked to the intensity of ADHD symptoms. Executive function involves managing complex cognitive tasks for organized behavior and includes three main areas: inhibitory control (suppressing impulsive actions), working memory (holding information briefly), and cognitive flexibility (switching between different mental tasks). Improving executive functions is a critical objective in the treatment of ADHD.
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are commonly used to treat ADHD, but can cause side effects like reduced appetite, sleep problems, nausea, and headaches. Long-term use may also lead to stunted growth and cardiovascular issues. This encourages the search for non-invasive methods to enhance executive function in children with ADHD.
Neurological techniques like neurofeedback and transcranial stimulation are increasingly used to treat children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurofeedback is the most adopted method; it is noninvasive and aims to improve brain function by providing real-time feedback on brainwave activity so participants can self-regulate targeted brain regions.
The systematic search and meta-analysis examined children and adolescents aged 6–18 with ADHD. It included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, as well as quasi-experimental studies that reported statistical data such as participant numbers, means, and standard deviations. Studies were required to use validated measures of executive function, including neurocognitive tasks or questionnaires. They also had to have control groups.
A meta-analysis of ten studies (539 participants) found a small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control after neurofeedback training, with no publication bias and minimal study heterogeneity*. Long-term treatment (over 21 hours) showed benefits, while short-term treatment did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed.
A meta-analysis of seven studies with 370 children and adolescents found a small-to-medium improvement in working memory after neurofeedback, with no publication bias overall but high heterogeneity. A dose-response effect was observed: treatments over 21 hours showed benefits, while shorter ones did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed.
The study team also looked at sustained effects six months to a year after conclusion of training. Meta-analysis of two studies totaling 131 participants found a sustained small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control, with negligible heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of three studies combining 182 participants found a sustained medium improvement in working memory, with moderate heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
The team concluded, “NFT is an effective intervention for improving executive function in children with ADHD, specifically inhibitory control and working memory. This approach demonstrates a more pronounced impact on working memory when extended beyond 1000 min [sic], with inhibitory control following closely behind. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that NFT may have sustained effects on both working memory and inhibitory control. Given the relatively small number of studies assessing long-term effects and the potential for publication bias, further research is necessary to confirm these effects.”
Moreover, because 1) RCTs are the gold standard, and the meta-analyses combined RCTs with non-RCTs, and 2) data from neurocognitive tasks was combined with data from more subjective and less accurate questionnaires, these meta-analysis results should be interpreted with further caution.
*Heterogeneity refers to the rate of variation between individual study outcomes. High heterogeneity means that there was substantial variation in the results. When a meta-anaylysis has high heterogeneity, it suggests that the studies differ significantly in their populations, methods, interventions, or outcomes, making the combined result much less reliable.
Xiaoke Zhong, Xiaoxia Yuan, Yuanfu Dai, Xinbi Zhang, and Changhao Jiang, “Neurofeedback training for executive function in ADHD children: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Scientific Reports (2025), 15: 28148, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94242-4.
Neurofeedback, also known as EEG (electroencephalogram)biofeedback, is a treatment that seeks to alleviate symptoms of various neurological and mental health disorders, including ADHD. It does this through immediate feedback from a computer program that tracks a client's brainwave activity, then uses sound or visual signals to retrain these brain signals. This in principle enables patients to learn to regulate and improve their brain function and reduce symptoms.
An Iranian study team recently performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature. It identified seventeen randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of neurofeedback treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD that could be aggregated for meta-analysis.
A meta-analysis of twelve RCTs with a combined total of 740 youths looked at parent ratings of changes in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, and separately of changes in inattention symptoms. In both instances, the net pooled effect centered on zero.
A meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a combined total of 787 youths examined teacher ratings. Once again, the pooled change hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms centered on zero. For inattention symptoms, the teacher ratings centered on a tiny improvement, but it did not approach statistical significance. The 95% confidence interval stretched well into negative territory.
There was no sign of publication bias. Between-study heterogeneity, on the other hand, was high, with some small sample size RCTs pointing to reduced symptoms, and other small sample size RCTs pointing to increased symptoms. However, the RCTs with the larger sample sizes clustered close around zero effect size.
The authors concluded,"The results provide preliminary evidence that neurofeedback treatment is not an efficacious clinical method for ADHD."
Noting that “The efficacy of surface electroencephalographic neurofeedback (EEG‐NF) for improving attentional performance assessed by laboratory measures in patients with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains unclear,” a Taiwanese study team systematically searched seven databases, including the U.S. clinical trials database, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through January of 2022.
They identified fourteen RCTs with a combined 718 participants that met criteria for inclusion in meta-analysis. The net outcome was a small-to-medium effect size improvement in attentional performance for participants receiving EEG neurofeedback by contrast with “comparators.”
The comparators varied widely: waitlist, treatment as usual, physical exercise, behavioral therapy, attention skills training, computer-aided attention training, medications, electromyographic biofeedback, sham EEG neurofeedback. This alone brings into question the meta-analysis outcome.
But there were additional methodological shortcomings. There was strong evidence of publication bias. And though the authors promised, “On encountering funnel plot asymmetry, potentially missing studies were imputed by using the Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method,” they never shared the outcome.
Another shortcoming was that only two of the fourteen RCTs blinded the participants, meaning that in twelve RCTs the participants were likely to be aware they were in the EEG neurofeedback group rather than the control group. And that made all the difference. The twelve unblinded RCTs were responsible for all the small-to-medium effect size improvement. There was no sign of improvement in the two blinded RCTs.
The authors tried to give a positive spin to these results, stating “our results supported the use of surface EEG-NF for improving attentional performance through the modulation of basic neurocognitive functioning in patients with ADHD,” while conceding, “However, given the small number of trials and the poor methodological qualities regarding blinding, our findings need to be judiciously interpreted and warrant further investigations for validation.”
A more candid assessment of this meta-analysis would be the one they began with: “The efficacy of surface electroencephalographic neurofeedback (EEG‐NF) for improving attentional performance assessed by laboratory measures in patients with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains unclear.”
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common condition affecting children and adolescents worldwide, characterized by symptoms such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention. While traditional treatments like medication and behavioral therapy are often used, some individuals are turning to complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) for help. One such option gaining attention is acupuncture. But does it really work for ADHD?
A recent comprehensive study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating ADHD symptoms. Here’s a breakdown of the findings, with a focus on the age groups included in the research and what these findings could mean for ADHD treatment options.
The study in question conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) of acupuncture trials for ADHD, comparing its effects to traditional treatments such as pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy. The researchers focused on acupuncture’s impact on core ADHD symptoms like hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems, while also exploring how acupuncture might help with other issues, such as learning difficulties and psychosomatic symptoms.
One key feature of this study was the inclusion of a broad age range of participants, specifically children and adolescents. These two groups are the most commonly diagnosed with ADHD, and their responses to treatments can vary significantly. Understanding how acupuncture works for these age groups is critical for evaluating its effectiveness as an ADHD treatment.
Here’s what the study found across the different age groups:
Despite these promising results, the study also highlighted several limitations:
In short, and as is so often the way of evidence-based medicine, we still can’t say with absolute certainty one way or the other. These studies may show promise in improving hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems– in both children and adolescents. However, the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend it as a primary treatment. While it may serve as a helpful complement to standard therapies, especially for those struggling with medication side effects or access to behavioral therapy, more research is needed to establish its effectiveness.
Stimulant medications have long been considered the default first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, and public narratives all reinforce the idea that stimulants should be tried first, with non-stimulants reserved for cases where stimulants fail or are poorly tolerated.
I recently partnered with leading ADHD researcher Jeffrey Newcorn for a Nature Mental Health commentary on the subject. We argue that this hierarchy deserves reexamination. It is important to note that our position is not anti-stimulant. Rather, we call into question whether the evidence truly supports treating non-stimulants as secondary options, and we propose that both classes should be considered equal first-line treatments.
Stimulants have earned their reputation as the go-to drug of choice for ADHD. They are among the most effective medications in psychiatry, reliably reducing core ADHD symptoms and improving daily functioning when properly titrated and monitored. However, when stimulant and non-stimulant medications are compared more closely, the gap between them appears smaller than commonly assumed.
Meta-analyses often report slightly higher average response rates for stimulants, but head-to-head trials where patients are directly randomized to one medication versus another frequently find no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or tolerability. Network meta-analyses similarly show that while some stimulant formulations have modest advantages, these differences are small and inconsistent, particularly in adults.
When translated into clinical terms, the advantage of stimulants becomes even more modest. Based on existing data, approximately eight patients would need to be treated with a stimulant rather than a non-stimulant for one additional person to experience a meaningful benefit. This corresponds to only a 56% probability that a given patient will respond better to a stimulant than to a non-stimulant. This difference is not what we would refer to as “clinically significant.”
One reason non-stimulants may appear less effective is the way efficacy is typically reported. Most comparisons rely on standardized mean differences, a method of averages that may mask heterogeneity of treatment effects. In reality, ADHD medications do not work uniformly across patients.
For example, evidence suggests that response to some non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine, is bimodal: this means that many patients respond extremely well, while others respond poorly, with few in between. When this happens, average effect sizes can obscure the fact that a substantial subgroup benefits just as much as they would from a stimulant. In other words, non-stimulants are not necessarily less effective across the board, but that they are simply different in who they help.
In our commentary, we also highlight structural issues in ADHD research. Stimulant trials are particularly vulnerable to unblinding, as their immediate and observable physiological effects can reveal treatment assignment, potentially inflating perceived efficacy. Non-stimulants, with slower onset and subtler effects, are less prone to this bias.
Additionally, many randomized trials exclude patients with common psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, or substance-use disorders. Using co-diagnoses as exclusion criteria for clinical trials on ADHD medications is nonviable when considering the large number of ADHD patients who also have other diagnoses. Real-world data suggest that a large proportion of individuals with ADHD would not qualify for typical trials, limiting how well results generalize to everyday clinical practice.
Standard evaluations of medication tolerability focus on side effects experienced by patients, but this narrow lens misses broader societal consequences. Stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, which introduces logistical barriers, regulatory burdens, supply vulnerabilities, and administrative strain for both patients and clinicians.
When used as directed, stimulant medications do not increase risk of substance-use disorders (and, in fact, tend to reduce these rates); however, as ADHD awareness has spread and stimulants are more widely prescribed, non-medical use of prescription stimulants has become more widespread, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Non-stimulants do not carry these risks.
Non-stimulants are not without drawbacks themselves, however. They typically take longer to work and have higher non-response rates, making them less suitable in situations where rapid results are essential. These limitations, however, do not justify relegating them to second-line status across the board.
This is a call for abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, future guidelines should present stimulant and non-stimulant medications as equally valid starting points, clearly outlining trade-offs related to onset, efficacy, misuse risk, and practical burden.
The evidence already supports this shift. The remaining challenge is aligning clinical practice and policy with what the data, and patient-centered care, are increasingly telling us.
Today, most treatment guidelines recommend starting ADHD treatment with stimulant medications. These medicines often work quickly and can be very effective, but they do not help every child, and they can have bothersome side effects, such as appetite loss, sleep problems, or mood changes. Families also worry about long-term effects, the possibility of misuse or abuse, as well as the recent nationwide stimulant shortages. Non-stimulant medications are available, but they are usually used only after stimulants have not been effective.
This stimulant-first approach means that many patients who would respond well to a non-stimulant will end up on a stimulant medication anyway. This study addresses this issue by testing two different ways of starting medication treatment for school-age children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We want to know whether beginning with a non-stimulant medicine can work as well as the “stimulant-first” approach, which is currently used by most prescribers.
From this study, we hope to learn:
Our goal is to give families and clinicians clear, practical evidence to support a truly shared decision: “Given this specific child, should we start with a stimulant or a non-stimulant?”
Who will be in the study?
We will enroll about 1,000 children and adolescents, ages 6 to 16, who:
We will include children with common co-occurring conditions (such as anxiety, depression, learning or developmental disorders) so that the results reflect the “real-world” children seen in clinics, not just highly selected research volunteers.
How will the treatments be assigned?
This is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, which means:
Parents and clinicians will know which type of medicine the child is taking, as in usual care. However, the experts who rate how much each child has improved using our main outcome measure will not be told which treatment strategy the child received. This helps keep their ratings unbiased.
What will participants be asked to do?
Each family will be followed for 12 months. We will collect information at:
At these times:
We will also track:
Data will be entered into a secure, HIPAA-compliant research database. Study staff at each site will work closely with families to make participation as convenient as possible, including offering flexible visit schedules and electronic options for completing forms when feasible.
How will we analyze the results?
Using standard statistical methods, we will:
All analyses will follow the “intention-to-treat” principle, meaning we compare children based on the strategy they were originally assigned to, even if their medication is later changed. This mirrors real-world decision-making: once you choose a starting strategy, what tends to happen over time?
Why is this study necessary now?
This study addresses a critical, timely gap in ADHD care:
In short, this study is needed now to move ADHD medication decisions beyond “one-size-fits-all.” By rigorously comparing stimulant-first and non-stimulant-first strategies in real-world settings, and by focusing on what matters most to children and families overall functioning, side effects, and long-term well-being, we aim to give patients, parents, and clinicians the information they need to choose the best starting treatment for each child.
This project was conceived by Professor Stephen V. Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University, Department of Psychiatry, Syracuse, NY) and Professor Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY). It will be conducted at nine sites across the USA.
EBI-ADHD:
If you live with ADHD, treat ADHD, or write about ADHD, you’ve probably run into the same problem: there’s a ton of research on treatments, but it’s scattered across hundreds of papers that don’t talk to each other. The EBI-ADHD website fixes that.
EBI-ADHD (Evidence-Based Interventions for ADHD) is a free, interactive platform that pulls together the best available research on how ADHD treatments work and how safe they are. It’s built for clinicians, people with ADHD and their families, and guideline developers who need clear, comparable information rather than a pile of PDFs. EBI-ADHD Database The site is powered by 200+ meta-analyses covering 50,000+ participants and more than 30 different interventions. These include medications, psychological therapies, brain-stimulation approaches, and lifestyle or “complementary” options.
The heart of the site is an interactive dashboard. You can:
The dashboard then shows an evidence matrix: a table where each cell is a specific treatment–outcome–time-point combination. Each cell tells you two things at a glance:
Clicking a cell opens more detail: effect sizes, the underlying meta-analysis, and how the certainty rating was decided.
EBI-ADHD is not just a curated list of papers. It’s built on a formal umbrella review of ADHD interventions, published in The BMJ in 2025. That review re-analyzed 221 meta-analyses using a standardized statistical pipeline and rating system.
The platform was co-created with 100+ clinicians and 100+ people with lived ADHD experience from around 30 countries and follows the broader U-REACH framework for turning complex evidence into accessible digital tools.
Why it Matters
ADHD is one of the most studied conditions in mental health, yet decisions in everyday practice are still often driven by habit, marketing, or selective reading of the literature. EBI-ADHD offers something different: a transparent, continuously updated map of what we actually know about ADHD treatments and how sure we are about it.
In short, it’s a tool to move conversations about ADHD care from “I heard this works” to “Here’s what the best current evidence shows, and let’s decide together what matters most for you.”
_logo%201.svg)
