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.
June 22, 2021
Several meta-analyses have assessed this question by computing the Standardized Mean Difference or SMD statistic. The SMD is a measure that allows us to compare different studies. For context, the effect of stimulant medication for treating ADHD is about 0.9. SMDs less than 0.3 are considered low, between 0.3 to 0.6 medium, and anything greater than high.
A 2004 meta-analysis combined the results of fifteen studies with a total of 219 participants and found a small association(SMD = .28, 95% CI .08-.49) between consumption of artificial food colors by children and increased hyperactivity. Excluding the smallest and lowest quality studies further reduced the SMD to .21, and a lower confidence limit of .007 also made it barely statistically significant. Publication bias was indicated by an asymmetric funnel plot. No effort was made to correct the bias.
A 2012 meta-analysis by Nigg et al. combined twenty studies with a total of 794 participants and again found a small effect size (SMD =.18, 95% CI .08-.29). It likewise found evidence of publication bias. Correcting for the bias led to a tiny effect size at the outer margin of statistical significance (SMD = .12, 95% CI .01-.23). Restricting the pool to eleven high-quality studies with 619 participants led to a similarly tiny effect size that fell just outside the 95% confidence interval (SMD = .13, CI =0-.25, p = .053). The authors concluded, "Overall, a mixed conclusion must be drawn. Although the evidence is too weak to justify action recommendations absent a strong precautionary stance, it is too substantial to dismiss."
In 2013 a European ADHD Guidelines Group consisting of 21 researchers (Sonuga-Barke et al.) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis that examined the efficacy of excluding artificial colors from the diets of children and adolescents as a treatment for ADHD. While many interventions showed benefits in unblinded assessments, only artificial food color exclusion and, to a lesser extent, free fatty acid supplementation remained effective under blinded conditions. The findings suggest that eliminating artificial food dyes may meaningfully reduce ADHD symptoms in some children, though it should be noted that the positive results were mostly seen in children with other food sensitivities.
The research to date does suggest a small effect of artificial food colors in aggravating symptoms of hyperactivity in children, and a potential beneficial effect of excluding these substances from the diets of children and adolescents, but the evidence is not very robust. More studies with greater numbers of participants, and better control for the effects of ADHD medications, will be required for a more definitive finding.
In the meantime, given that artificial food colors are not an essential part of the diet, parents could consider excluding them from their children's meals, since doing so is risk-free, and the cost (reading labels) is negligible.
Joel T. Nigg, Kara Lewis, Tracy Edinger, Michael Falk, “Meta-Analysis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms, Restriction Diet, and synthetic Food Color Additives,” Journal of The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2012), Vol.51, No. 1, 86-97.David W. Schab and Nhi-Ha T. Trinh, “Do Artificial FoodColors Promote Hyperactivity in Children with Hyperactive Syndromes? Aneta-Analysis of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trials,” Developmental and behavioral Pediatrics(2004), Vol. 25, No. 6, 423-434.Edmund J.S. Sonuga-Barke et al., “NonpharmacologicalInterventions for ADHD: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of RandomizedControlled Trials of Dietary and Psychological Treatments,” American Journal of Psychiatry(2013), 170:275-289.
If we are to read what we believe on the Internet, dieting can cure many of the ills faced by humans. Much of what is written is true. Changes in dieting can be good for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney stones to name just a few examples. But what about ADHD? Food elimination diets have been extensively studied for their ability to treat ADHD. They are based on the very reasonable idea that allergies or toxic reactions to foods can have effects on the brain and could lead to ADHD symptoms.
Although the idea is reasonable, it is not such an easy task to figure out what foods might cause allergic reactions that could lead to ADHD symptoms. Some proponents of elimination diets have proposed eliminating a single food, others include multiple foods, and some go as far as to allow only a few foods to be eaten to avoid all potential allergies. Most readers will wonder if such restrictive diets, even if they did work, are feasible. That is certainly a concern for very restrictive diets.
Perhaps the most well-known ADHD diet is the Feingold diet(named after its creator). This diet eliminates artificial food colorings and preservatives that have become so common in the western diet. Some have claimed that the increasing use of colorings and preservatives explains why the prevalence of ADHD is greater in Western countries and has been increasing over time. But those people have it wrong. The prevalence of ADHD is similar around the world and has not been increasing over time. That has been well documented but details must wait for another blog.
The Feingold and other elimination diets have been studied by meta-analysis. This means that someone analyzed several well-controlled trials published by other people. Passing the test of meta-analysis is the strongest test of any treatment effect. When this test is applied to the best studies available, there is evidence that the exclusion of fool colorings helps reduce ADHD symptoms. But more restrictive diets are not effective. So removing artificial food colors seems like a good idea that will help reduce ADHD symptoms. But although such diets ‘work’, they do network very well. On a scale of one to 10where 10 is the best effect, drug therapy scores 9 to 10 but eliminating food colorings scores only 3 or 4. Some patients or parents of patients might want this diet change first in the hopes that it will work well for them. That is a possibility, but if that is your choice, you should not delay the more effective drug treatments for too long in the likely event that eliminating food colorings is not sufficient. You can learn more about elimination diets from Nigg, J. T., and K.Holton (2014). "Restriction and elimination diets in ADHD treatment."Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 23(4): 937-953.
Keep in mind that the treatment guidelines from professional organizations point to ADHD drugs as the first-line treatment for ADHD. The only exception is for preschool children where medication is only the first-line treatment for severe ADHD; the guidelines recommend that other preschoolers with ADHD be treated with non-pharmacologic treatments, when available. You can learn more about non-pharmacologic treatments for ADHD from a book I recently edited: Faraone, S. V. &Antshel, K. M. (2014). ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions. Child AdolescPsychiatr Clin N Am 23, xiii-xiv.
Mindfulness has been defined as “intentionally directing attention to present moment experiences with an attitude of curiosity and acceptance.” Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) aim to improve mindfulness skills.
A newly-published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by a team of British neurologists and psychiatrists explores the effectiveness of MBIs in treating a variety of mental health conditions in children and adolescents. Among those conditions is the attention deficit component of ADHD.
A comprehensive literature search identified studies that met the following criteria:
1) The effects of mindfulness were compared against a control condition – either no contact, waitlist, active, or attention placebo. The waitlist means the control group receives the same treatment after the study concludes. Active control means that a known, effective treatment (as opposed to a placebo) is compared to an experimental treatment. Attention placebo means that controls receive a treatment that mimics the time and attention received by the treatment group but is believed not to have a specific effect on the subjects. Participants were randomly assigned to the control condition.
2) The MBI was delivered in more than one session by a trained mindfulness teacher, involved sustained meditation practice, and it was not mixed in with another activity such as yoga.
Eight studies evaluating attention deficit symptoms, with a combined total of 1,158 participants, met inclusion criteria. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.19, with a 95% confidence range of 0.04 to 0.34 (p = .02). That indicates a small effect size for MBIs in reducing attention deficit symptoms. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 35, p =.15), and the Egger test showed little sign of publication bias (p = 0.42).
When looking only at studies with active controls, five studies with a total of 787 participants yielded an SMD of 0.13, with a 95% confidence interval of -0.01 to 0.28 (p = .06), indicating a tiny effect size that failed to reach significance. Active controls most commonly received health education, with a few receiving social responsibility training or Hatha yoga.
Overall, this meta-analysis suggests limited effectiveness, especially when compared with active controls. If MBIs are effective for ADHD, their effect on symptoms is very small. Thus, such treatments should not be used in place of the many well-validated, evidenced-based therapies available. Whether longer periods of MBI (training times varied between 2 and 18 hours spread out over 2 to 24 weeks) might result in greater effect sizes remains unexplored
After noting that the association between ADHD and obesity has been called into question because of small sample sizes, wide age ranges, self-reported assessments, and inadequate attention to potential confounders, an Israeli study team set out "to assess the association between board-certified psychiatrist diagnoses of ADHD and measured adolescent BMI [body mass index] in a nationally represented sample of over one million adolescents who were medically evaluated before mandatory military service."
The team distinguished between severe and mild ADHD. It also focused on a single age group.
All Israelis are subject to compulsory military service. In preparation for that service, military physicians perform a thorough medical evaluation. Trained paramedics recorded every conscript's height and weight.
The study cohort was divided into five BMI percentile groups according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's BMI percentiles for 17-year-olds, and further divided by sex: <5th percentile (underweight), 5th-49th percentile (low-normal), 50th-84th percentile (high normal), 85th-94th percentile (overweight) and ≥95th (obese). Low-normal was used as the reference group.
Adjustments were made for sex, birth year, age at examination, height, country of birth (Israeli or other), socioeconomic status, and education level.
In the fully adjusted results, those with severe ADHD were 32% more likely to be overweight and 84% more likely to be obese than their typically developing peers. Limiting results to Israeli-born conscripts made a no difference.
Male adolescents with mild ADHD were 24% more likely to be overweight, and 42% more likely to be obese. Females with mild ADHD are 33% more likely to be overweight, and 42% more likely to be obese. Again, the country of birth made no difference.
The authors concluded, that both severe and mild ADHD was associated with an increased risk for obesity in adolescents at the age of 17 years. The increasing recognition of the persistence of ADHD into adulthood suggests that this dual morbidity may have a significant impact on the long-term health of individuals with ADHD, thus early preventive measures should be taken.
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)
