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.
Methylphenidate is known as the gold-standard treatment for ADHD, increasing dopamine concentrations and helping to focus. However, these psychostimulants may be less well-tolerated in adults. Adverse effects include decreased appetite, nausea, racing heartbeat, restlessness, nervousness, and insomnia.
Neurofeedback is a non-pharmaceutical treatment that combines cognitive behavioral therapy techniques like conditioning and positive reinforcement with electroencephalography (EEG) feedback. Electrodes are placed on specific brain areas, guiding patients to regulate their brainwave activity.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) uses electromagnetism to induce an electric field by passing a magnetic field through the scalp. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on the other hand, directly applies an electric current through the scalp. Both repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and tDCS primarily target the outermost layers of neurons, as they are non-invasive methods. Nevertheless, both techniques are believed to affect deeper layers through interconnected neuronal networks.
A French research team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to perform a meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of these experimental treatment techniques.
Eight studies – four using rTMS and another four using tDCS – met the inclusion criteria. Studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and had to involve multiple sessions of treatment. Participants had to be adults previously diagnosed with ADHD.
Outcomes were measured through self-rated scales, neuropsychological tests, and electrophysiological pre-post evaluations.
Separate meta-analyses of the four tDCS RCTs combining 154 participants and of the four rTMS RCTs encompassing 149 participants likewise reported no significant improvements. In all cases variation in outcomes between studies was moderate, and there were no signs of publication bias.
Meta-analysis of all eight studies with a combined total of 421 participants reported no significant improvements over controls. Narrowing down to studies that used sham controls likewise produced no significant improvements. So, despite the title of this study, these neuromechanistic treatments do not appear to be the future of treatment for adult ADHD.
Margaux Courrèges, Marie Hoareau, Carole Levenes, and Hassan Rahioui, “Comparative efficacy of neurofeedback, tDCS, and TMS: The future of therapy for adults with ADHD. A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Affective Disorders (2025), 388: 119585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119585.
ADHD is hypothesized to arise from 1) poor inhibitory control resulting from impaired executive functions which are associated with reduced activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and increased activation of some subcortical regions; and 2)hyperarousal to environmental stimuli, hampering the ability of the executive functioning system, particularly the medial frontal cortex, orbital and ventromedial prefrontal areas, and subcortical regions such as the caudate nucleus, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and thalamus, to control the respective stimuli.
These brain anomalies, rendered visible through magnetic resonance imaging, have led researchers to try new means of treatment to directly address the deficits. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses a weak electrical current to stimulate specific regions of the brain.
Efficacy:
A team of researchers from Europe and ran performed a systematic search of the literature and identified fourteen studies exploring the safety and efficacy of tDCS. Three of these studies examined the effects on ADHD symptoms. They found a large effect size for the inattention subscale and a medium effect size for the hyperactivity/impulsivity. Yet, as the authors cautioned, "a definite conclusion concerning the clinical efficacy of tDCS based on the results of these three studies is not possible."
The remaining studies investigated the effects on specific neuropsychological and cognitive deficits in ADHD:
The fact that heterogeneity in the methodology of these studies made meta-analysis impossible means these results, while promising, cannot be seen as in any way definitive.
Safety:
Ten studies examined childhood ADHD. Three found no adverse effects either during or after tDCS. One study reported a feeling of "shock" in a few patients during tDCS. Several more reported skin tingling and itching during tDCS. Several also reported mild headaches.
The four studies of adults with ADHD reported no major adverse events. One study reported a single incident of acute mood change, sadness, diminished motivation, and tension five hours after stimulation. Another reported mild instances of skin tingling and burning sensations.
To address side effects such as tingling and itching, the authors suggested reducing the intensity of the electrical current and increasing the duration. They also suggested placing electrodes at least 6 cm apart to reduce current shunting through the ski. For children, they recommended the use of smaller electrodes for better focus in smaller brains.
The authors concluded, "The findings of this systematic review suggest at least a partial improvement of symptoms and cognitive deficits in ADHD by tDCS. They further suggest that stimulation parameters such as polarity and site are relevant to the efficacy of tDCS in ADHD. Compared to cathodal stimulation, Anodal tDCS seems to have a superior effect on both the clinical symptoms and cognitive deficits. However, the routine clinical application of this method as an efficient therapeutic intervention cannot yet be recommended based on these studies ..."
.png)
The U.S. government released a sweeping document titled The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again, developed by the President’s “Make America Healthy Again” Commission. Chaired by public figures and physicians with ties to the current administration, the report presents a broad diagnosis of what it calls a national health crisis among children. It cites rising rates of obesity, diabetes, allergies, mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorders, and chronic disease as signs of a generation at risk.
The report's overarching goal is to shift U.S. health policy away from reactive, pharmaceutical-based care and toward prevention, resilience, and long-term well-being. It emphasizes reforming the food system, reducing environmental chemical exposure, addressing lifestyle factors like physical inactivity and screen overuse, and rethinking what it calls the “overmedicalization” of American children.
While some of the report’s arguments are steeped in political rhetoric and controversial claims—particularly around vaccines and mental health diagnoses—others are rooted in well-established public health science. This blog aims to highlight where the MAHA Report gets the science right, especially as it relates to childhood health and ADHD.
Although the MAHA Report contains several debatable assertions, it also outlines six key public health priorities that are well-supported by decades of research. If implemented thoughtfully, these recommendations might make a meaningful difference in the health of American children:
Reduce Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) Consumption
UPFs now make up nearly 70% of children’s daily calories. These foods are high in added sugars, refined starches, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives, but low in nutrients. Studies—including a 2019 NIH-controlled feeding study—show that UPFs promote weight gain, overeating, and metabolic dysfunction. What can help: Tax incentives for fresh food retailers, improved school meals, front-of-pack labeling, and food industry regulation.
Promote Physical Activity and Limiting Sedentary Time
Most American children don’t get the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day. This contributes to obesity, cardiovascular risk, and even mental health issues. Physical activity is known to improve attention, mood, sleep, and self-regulation. What can help: Mandatory daily PE, school recess policies, walkable community infrastructure, and screen-time education.
Addressing Sleep Deprivation
Teens today sleep less than they did a decade ago, in part due to screen use and early school start times. Sleep loss is linked to depression, suicide risk, poor academic performance, and metabolic problems. What can help: Later school start times, family education about sleep hygiene, and limits on evening screen exposure.
Improving Maternal and Early Childhood Nutrition
The report indirectly supports actions that are backed by strong evidence: encouraging breastfeeding, supporting maternal whole-food diets, and improving infant nutrition. These are known to reduce chronic disease risk later in life.
ADHD is one of the most discussed neurodevelopmental disorders in the MAHA Report, but many of its claims about ADHD are misleading, oversimplified, or inconsistent with decades of scientific evidence, much of which is described in the International Consensus Statement on ADHD, and other references given below.
This is true. Diagnosis rates have risen over the past two decades, due in part to better recognition, broadened diagnostic criteria, and changes in healthcare access. Diagnosis rates in some parts of the country are too high, but we don’t know why. That should be addressed and investigated. MAHA attributes increasing diagnoses to ‘overmedicalization’. That is a hypothesis worth testing but not a conclusion we can draw from available data.
These have been associated with ADHD but have not been documented as causes. ADHD is highly heritable, with genetic factors accounting for 70–80% of the risk. Unlike genetic studies, environmental risk studies are compromised by confounding variables. There are good reasons to address these issues but doing so is unlikely to reduce diagnostic rates of ADHD.
❌ Inaccurate: ADHD medications don’t work long-term.
The report criticizes stimulant use but fails to note that ADHD medications are among the most effective psychiatric treatments, especially when consistently used. They cite the MTA study’s long term outcome study of kids assigned to medication vs. placebo as showing medications don’t work in the long term. But that comparison is flawed because during the follow-up period, many kids on medication stopped taking them and many on placebo started taking medications. Many studies document that medications for ADHD protect against many real-world outcomes such as accidental injuries, substance abuse and even premature death.
Despite the issues discussed above, the MAHA Report can indirectly help children and adults with ADHD by pushing for systemic changes that reduce ultra-processed food consumption, increase physical activity, and motivate better sleep practices.
In other words, you don’t need to reject the diagnosis of ADHD to support broader changes in how we feed, educate, and care for children. A more supportive, less toxic environment benefits everyone—including those with ADHD.
ADHD is associated with impaired executive functioning. Executive functions are a set of mental skills that include working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control. These are skills we use every day to learn, work, and manage daily life. Trouble with executive function can make it hard to focus, follow directions, and handle emotions.
A Chinese study team searched for studies on non-pharmacological treatments of children and adolescents with ADHD aged 5 to 18 years intended to improve their executive functioning.
An initial methodological weakness was the decision to combine studies using formal ADHD diagnoses based on professional psychiatric manuals (DSM 3/4/5 and ICD 10/11) and studies relying on other methods such as parent reports.
This lack of rigor in identifying ADHD is surprising given that the team used studies that directly measured executive functioning through neurocognitive tasks, excluding those that relied on parent- or teacher-reported questionnaires.
67 studies involving 74 training interventions met the criteria. Meta-analysis of all these studies, encompassing a total of 3,101 participants, suggested medium-to-large effect size improvements in executive functioning. There was evidence of publication bias, but trim-and-fill adjustment increased the estimated effect size to large.
Nevertheless, there were further methodological shortcomings:
In this case, subgroup analysis mostly failed to explain the heterogeneity, with a single exception. Meta-analysis of the 16 studies with 744 participants that explored executive function-specific curriculum found small-to-medium effect size improvements, with no heterogeneity.
Unfortunately, the team did not perform a separate publication bias analysis on this subgroup, just as it failed to do so on any of the other subgroups.
By far the strongest evidence of benefit came from meta-analysis of the 17 studies with 558 participants evaluating physical exercise. Here the outcome pointed to very large effect size improvements in executive functioning. Yet once again, heterogeneity was extremely high. Breaking this down further between aerobic exercise and cognitively engaged physical exercise made no difference. Both types had the same very high effect size, with very wide heterogeneity. Again, there was no separate evaluation of publication bias on this group.
Meta-analyses of thirteen studies of neurofeedback combining 444 participants, and fifteen studies of cognitive training encompassing 727 participants, both pointed to just-short-of-large effect size improvements in executive function. Meta-analysis of twelve studies of game-based training with 598 participants indicated medium effect size gains. But again, in all three subgroups there was great variation between studies, and no analysis of publication bias.
While these meta-analyses are suggestive of efficacy, especially for physical exercise interventions, their methodological shortcomings mean we will have to await more rigorous meta-analyses to draw any more settled conclusions. Moreover, these meta-analyses did not evaluate the adequacy of the control groups used in the trials, which is a big shortcoming given prior work showing that the effect of non-pharmacologic treatments are very weak or non-existent when adequate controls are used.
The Background:
Previous research has suggested that people with ADHD have higher rates of death than those without the condition. Until now, many of those studies lacked the detail needed to untangle why this might be the case. A recent meta-analysis of eight separate studies reported that ADHD roughly doubled the risk of death, and it hinted that factors like socioeconomic status and other mental illnesses might help explain the link.
The Study:
To explore this in more detail, researchers used the US National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative prospective cohort of just over 52,000 adults. Survey records were linked with the National Death Index, and participants were followed from the date of interview until death or December 31, 2019, whichever came first. The main outcome was death from any cause. With a median follow-up of just under eight years, there were 6,024 deaths recorded.
When the team adjusted their analysis for age, sex, ethnicity, and the year of the survey, having ADHD was associated with a 58% higher risk of death. Controlling further for family income and educational level reduced that increased risk slightly, to 50%.
Controlling for health conditions (like high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and cancer) and lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and body weight) also reduced the association to about 46%.
By contrast, when the researchers adjusted for two psychiatric conditions (anxiety and depression) commonly found alongside ADHD, the link between ADHD and higher mortality disappeared statistically. In other words, once anxiety and depression were taken into account, ADHD itself was no longer associated with a clearly measurable increase in the risk of death.
What Does This Mean?
The authors conclude that the apparent effect of ADHD on mortality seems to operate largely through accompanying mental illness, and to a lesser extent through lifestyle and physical health problems. They suggest that treating and managing these co-occurring issues (through medications, therapy, and behavioral interventions) might help reduce the risk of premature death in people with ADHD, although they note that further evidence is needed.
The Background:
Dementia is a rapidly growing public health problem affecting more than 50 million people worldwide. Nearly 10 million new cases are diagnosed each year, and that number is expected to almost triple by 2050. The most common form is Alzheimer’s disease, accounting for roughly 60–70% of cases, followed by vascular dementia at around 20%. Other types include dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson’s disease dementia, and frontotemporal dementia. While no cure exists, managing modifiable risk factors (such as high blood pressure, smoking, physical inactivity, and poorly controlled diabetes) can delay or slow both the onset and progression of the condition.
Several studies have reported an elevated dementia risk among people with ADHD, and a number of mechanisms may explain this association. These include shared genetic or neurobiological vulnerabilities, reduced cognitive reserve (leaving the brain less resilient to age-related damage), and greater lifetime exposure to other established dementia risk factors.
Earlier reviews explored the possible link between ADHD and dementia, but tended toward a broader scope (incorporating other neurodegenerative disorders or mixing study designs), which introduced substantial variability and precluded quantitative synthesis. The relevant research literature has also expanded considerably since those reviews appeared.
The Study:
This meta-analysis restricted inclusion to case-control and cohort studies, yielding five that met the criteria. One was a case-control study with 400 participants; the other four were cohort studies collectively covering 3.7 million individuals, two retrospective and two prospective.
The Results:
Pooling the four cohort studies, individuals with ADHD showed approximately two-and-a-half times the dementia risk of those without the diagnosis. There was no indication of publication bias.
The Take-Away:
The authors concluded that ADHD is associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause dementia in later life, while noting that its relationship to specific dementia subtypes remains less clear and warrants attention in future research.
.png)
The Background:
Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) themselves show higher rates of ADHD. Because ADHD is partly heritable (meaning genes contribute to the condition), some of the increased ADHD seen in children of mothers with PCOS could come from shared genetic factors. In other words, a mother’s and her child’s increased risk might sometimes reflect common genes rather than an effect of the pregnancy itself.
Beyond genetics, growing evidence points to maternal metabolic problems during pregnancy as another important risk factor for neurodevelopmental outcomes. PCOS is one of these conditions and is considered both potentially modifiable (treatable or manageable) and biologically plausible as a contributor to risk. PCOS affects an estimated 5–10% of women of reproductive age worldwide and is characterized by signs such as hyperandrogenism (higher-than-normal levels of “male” hormones), insulin resistance (poorer ability to use the hormone insulin, which can affect blood sugar and metabolism), and chronic low-grade inflammation.
However, studies to date have not all reached the same conclusions. Some research suggests the association between maternal PCOS and offspring ADHD is stronger for girls, while other studies did not analyze results by child sex. Methodological differences make it harder to draw clear conclusions.
The Study:
It’s important to note that the studies included in this meta-analysis were observational (cohort studies and case-control studies). Observational studies can identify associations (that two things occur together) but cannot prove that one causes the other. A cohort study follows people over time, and a case-control study compares people with a condition to similar people without it.
The pooled results came from six studies that together included almost 1.4 million mother–child pairs and that adjusted for confounders (other factors that might influence the result, such as maternal age or socioeconomic status). After statistical adjustment, children of mothers with PCOS had about 40% greater odds of ADHD than children of mothers without PCOS. The analysis reported no evidence of publication bias (no clear sign that only positive studies were published) and zero heterogeneity (the results were consistent across the studies).
There was no meaningful difference in results between cohort and case-control studies, and the meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in the association when comparing male and female offspring.
The Take-Away:
The research team concluded that this large-scale synthesis found an association between maternal PCOS and higher odds of ADHD and other neuropsychiatric conditions in children. They suggested that children born to mothers with PCOS may benefit from developmental monitoring to identify and address problems early, while emphasizing that causal relationships have not been established. They called for further studies to confirm these findings and to investigate the biological and environmental mechanisms that might explain the association. Indeed, because women with PCOS show higher rates of ADHD than other women, we need genetically informed research designs to see if the reported association is confounded.
_logo%201.svg)
