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.
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.”
Gosling CJ, Garcia-Argibay M, De Prisco M, Arrondo G, Ayrolles A, Antoun S, Caparos S, Catalán A, Ellul P, Dobrosavljevic M, Farhat LC, Fico G, Eudave L, Groenman AP, Højlund M, Jurek L, Nourredine M, Oliva V, Parlatini V, Psyllou C, Salazar-de-Pablo G, Tomlinson A, Westwood SJ, Cipriani A, Correll CU, Yon DK, Larsson H, Ostinelli EG, Shin JI, Fusar-Poli P, Ioannidis JPA, Radua J, Solmi M, Delorme R, Cortese S. Benefits and harms of ADHD interventions: umbrella review and platform for shared decision making. BMJ. 2025 Nov 26;391:e085875. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2025-085875. PMID: 41297970; PMCID: PMC12651917
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
With the growth of the Internet, we are flooded with information about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from many sources, most of which aim to provide useful and compelling "facts" about the disorder. But, for the cautious reader, separating fact from opinion can be difficult when writers have not spelled out how they have come to decide that the information they present is factual.
My blog has several guidelines to reassure readers that the information they read about ADHD is up-to-date and dependable. They are as follows:
Nearly all the information presented is based on peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature about ADHD. "Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists read the article and made suggestions for changes and approved that it was of sufficient quality for publication. I say "nearly all" because in some cases I've used books or other information published by colleagues who have a reputation for high-quality science.
When expressing certainty about putative facts, I am guided by the principles of evidence-based medicine, which recognizes that the degree to which we can be certain about the truth of scientific statements depends on several features of the scientific papers used to justify the statements, such as the number of studies available and the quality of the individual studies. For example, compare these two types of studies. One study gives drug X to 10 ADHD patients and reported that 7 improved. Another gave drug Y to 100 patients and a placebo to 100 other patients and used statistics to show that the rate of improvement was significantly greater in the drug-treated group. The second study is much better and much larger, so we should be more confident in its conclusions. The rules of evidence are fairly complex and can be viewed at the Oxford Center for Evidenced Based Medicine (OCEBM;http://www.cebm.net/).
The evidenced-based approach incorporates two types of information: a) the quality of the evidence and b) the magnitude of the treatment effect. The OCEBM levels of evidence quality are defined as follows (higher numbers are better:
Non-randomized, controlled studies. In these studies, the treatment group is compared to a group that receives a placebo treatment, which is a fake treatment not expected to work.
It is possible to have high-quality evidence proving that a treatment works but the treatment might not work very well. So it is important to consider the magnitude of the treatment effect, also called the "effect size" by statisticians. For ADHD, it is easiest to think about ranking treatments on a ten-point scale. The stimulant medications have a quality rating of 5 and also have the strongest magnitude of effect, about 9 or 10.Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation 'works' with a quality rating of 5, but the score for the magnitude of the effect is only 2, so it doesn't work very well. We have to take into account patient or parent preferences, comorbid conditions, prior response to treatment, and other issues when choosing a treatment for a specific patient, but we can only use an evidence-based approach when deciding which treatments are well-supported as helpful for a disorder.
A new large-scale study has shed light on which treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are most effective and best tolerated.
Researchers analyzed 113 randomized controlled trials involving nearly 15,000 adults diagnosed with ADHD. These studies included medications (like stimulants and atomoxetine), psychological therapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy), and newer approaches like neurostimulation.
The Findings
Stimulant medications (lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate) as well as selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (atomoxetine) were the only treatments that consistently reduced core ADHD symptoms—both from the perspective of patients and clinicians. It may be worth noting that atomoxetine, while effective, was less well tolerated, with more people dropping out due to side effects.
Psychological therapies such as CBT, mindfulness, and psychoeducation showed some benefits, but mainly according to clinician ratings—not necessarily from the patients themselves. Neurostimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation also showed some improvements, but only in limited contexts and with small sample sizes.
Conclusion
So, what does this mean for people navigating ADHD in adulthood? Stimulant medications remain the most effective treatment for managing ADHD symptoms day-to-day but nonstimulant medication are not far behind, which is good given the problems we’ve had with stimulant shortages. This study also supports structured psychotherapy as a viable treatment option, especially when used in conjunction with medication.
The study emphasizes the importance of ongoing, long-term research and the need for treatment plans that are tailored to the individual ADHD patient– Managing adult ADHD effectively calls for flexible, patient-centered care.
-----
Struggling with side effects or not seeing improvement in your day-to-day life? Dive into a step-by-step journey that starts with the basics of screening and diagnosis, detailing the clinical criteria healthcare professionals use so you can be certain you receive an accurate evaluation. This isn’t just another ADHD guide—it’s your toolkit for getting the care you deserve. This is the kind of care that doesn’t just patch up symptoms but helps you unlock your potential and build the life you want. Whether you’ve just been diagnosed or you’ve been living with ADHD for years, this booklet is here to empower you to take control of your healthcare journey.
Proceeds from the sale of this book are used to support www.ADHDevidence.org.
Background:
Traditional measures of obesity, like body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference, have been linked to ADHD risk — but they aren’t great at capturing where fat is actually stored in the body. A newer index called relative fat mass (RFM), which combines height and waist circumference, does a better job of estimating overall body fat and predicting metabolic risks like heart disease and metabolic syndrome. Because those conditions share some underlying biological mechanisms with ADHD, researchers wondered whether RFM might also help explain the relationship between obesity and ADHD — particularly in children.
That question is complicated by the fact that ADHD doesn't look the same in boys and girls. Boys tend to display more hyperactive and impulsive behavior, making their ADHD easier to spot. Girls more often show inattention, which is quieter and frequently goes undiagnosed.
The Study:
A new study set out to test whether RFM is associated with ADHD in children, and whether that association differs between sexes. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected between 1999 and 2004, the researchers narrowed a large initial pool of over 31,000 participants down to 5,089 children and adolescents aged 6 to 14 who had complete data on height, waist circumference, ADHD screening, and other relevant variables.
After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, Poverty-Income Ratio, maternal age at delivery, maternal smoking during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, and birth weight, the results revealed a striking split along sex lines.
In boys, higher RFM was associated with lower odds of ADHD. Compared to boys in the lowest fat-mass quartile, those in the second quartile had about 10% lower odds of ADHD, rising to over 30% lower in the third quartile and nearly 40% lower in the highest. In girls, the pattern reversed entirely. While girls in the second quartile showed similar odds to those with the lowest RFM, girls in the third and fourth quartiles had 60% to 70% greater odds of ADHD.
Conclusion & Why This Matters:
In recent years, the relationship between obesity and ADHD has become an increasingly important focus in pediatric neurodevelopmental research. Studies have reported higher rates of ADHD symptoms among children and adolescents with obesity compared with their non-obese peers, and difficulties with peer relationships have also been linked to increased obesity risk (Sönmez et al., 2019). From a neurobiological standpoint, both conditions may involve shared underlying mechanisms, particularly dysfunction in dopaminergic pathways.
The authors concluded that higher body fat levels appear to lower ADHD risk in boys while raising it in girls. This finding highlights why sex-specific analysis matters in ADHD research. The underlying biological reasons for this divergence, however, remain an open question and open the door for future research.
While ADHD is a developmental disorder, shaped by biology and genetics, growing evidence shows that it is also influenced by the social and environmental conditions in which children grow up. Research on the social determinants of health emphasizes that development is shaped not only by biology but also by factors such as family income, access to healthcare, neighborhood safety, and material stability. These factors can affect both how developmental challenges appear and whether they are recognized and diagnosed.
Children facing socioeconomic disadvantage consistently show higher risks of developmental and behavioral difficulties. Chronic stress linked to poverty – including financial strain, food insecurity, and limited access to resources – has been associated with problems in attention, emotional regulation, and daily functioning. Children from lower-income families also tend to experience more severe ADHD symptoms and face greater barriers to ongoing care.
Neighborhood conditions matter as well. Unsafe environments can limit opportunities for play and social interaction while increasing caregiver stress, all of which may influence children’s behavior and development. Material hardships, such as food insecurity, can further undermine stability at home.
The Study:
The study analyzed six years of data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (2018–2023), covering more than 205,000 U.S. children aged 3 to 17. After accounting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, family structure, survey year, and other social factors, the researchers found a strong income gradient in ADHD prevalence. Compared with children in households earning at least four times the federal poverty level, those in households earning two to four times that level had 28 percent higher odds of ADHD. Odds rose to 70 percent higher in households earning one to two times the poverty level, and more than doubled among children living below the poverty line.
Parental education showed a similar pattern. Compared with children whose parents had completed college, ADHD odds were 20 percent higher among those whose parents had some college education, 40 percent higher among those whose parents had only a high school education, and 80 percent higher among those whose parents had not finished high school.
Children living in unsafe neighborhoods had nearly twice the odds of ADHD compared with those in safe neighborhoods, and food insecurity was also linked to almost double the odds.
By contrast, race and ethnicity alone were associated with much smaller differences. Compared with non-Hispanic White children, children in non-Hispanic Black households had an 18 percent higher likelihood of ADHD, while children in Hispanic households had a 25 percent lower likelihood. No substantial differences were observed for children from other or multiracial households.
Conclusion and Takeaway:
The study team concluded, “Children living in lower-income households, experiencing food insecurity, and residing in unsafe neighborhoods consistently showed higher prevalence and higher adjusted odds of both conditions. … Overall, these findings reinforce the need to view neurodevelopmental disorders within a broader social and structural framework.”
It should be noted that this study is not aiming to name social factors as direct causes of ADHD. Rather, it points to socioeconomic disparities as contributing to the way ADHD develops and how it is treated. This type of research, as well as acknowledging barriers to care, is crucial for clinicians, counselors, teachers, etc., to consider when working with youth with ADHD.
Counting umbilical cord vessels is standard in prenatal ultrasounds and confirmed at birth. Single umbilical artery (SUA) occurs in about 1 in 200 cases, with roughly 10% associated with anomalies, including central nervous system defects. Isolated SUA (iSUA) means one artery is missing without other structural issues.
Research on SUA, especially isolated iSUA, and childhood neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) is limited and inconclusive. iSUA is linked to preterm birth and small-for-gestational age (SGA), both of which are NDD risk factors.
This Norwegian nationwide population study aimed to assess NDD risk in children with iSUA at birth, the influence of sex, and how preterm birth and SGA mediate this relationship.
The nation’s universal single-payer health insurance and comprehensive population registries made it possible to analyze all 858,397 single births occurring from 1999 to 2013, with follow-up continuing through 2019. Among these cases, 3,532 involved iSUA.
After adjusting for confounders such as parental age, education, and maternal health factors, no overall link was found between iSUA and later ADHD diagnosis. However, females with iSUA had about a 40% higher risk of subsequent ADHD compared to those without iSUA, even after adjustment.
The authors concluded, “The present study indicates that iSUA is weakly associated with ID [intellectual disability] and ADHD, and these associations are influenced by sex. This association is mediated negligibly through preterm birth and SGA. The associations were not clinically significant, and the absence of associations of iSUA with other NDD is reassuring. This finding can be useful in the counseling of expectant parents of fetuses diagnosed with iSUA.”
_logo%201.svg)
