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.
Stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (Adderall), are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. In the United States alone, prescription rates have climbed more than 50% over the past decade, driven largely by growing awareness of ADHD in both children and adults. Yet stimulants also have a long history of non-medical use, and concerns about their psychological risks persist among patients, families, and clinicians alike.
Two major studies now offer the clearest picture yet of what that risk actually looks like, and who it may affect.
The Background:
Before turning to the research, it helps to understand the landscape. A notable share of stimulant users misuse their medication: roughly one in four takes it in ways other than prescribed, and about one in eleven meets criteria for Prescription Stimulant Use Disorder (PSUD). Counterintuitively, most people with PSUD aren’t obtaining drugs illicitly — they’re misusing their own prescriptions.
This distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use turns out to be critical when evaluating psychosis risk.
The Study:
A comprehensive meta-analysis by Jangra and colleagues pooled data across more than a dozen studies to compare psychotic outcomes in people using stimulants therapeutically versus non-therapeutically. The contrast was striking.
Among therapeutic users (more than 220,000 individuals taking stimulants at prescribed doses under medical supervision), psychotic episodes occurred in roughly one in five hundred people. When symptoms did appear, they typically emerged after prolonged treatment or in individuals with pre-existing psychiatric vulnerabilities, and they usually resolved when the medication was stopped.
Among non-therapeutic users (over 8,000 participants across twelve studies, many using methamphetamine or high-dose amphetamines), nearly one in three experienced psychotic symptoms. These episodes tended to be more severe, involving persecutory delusions and hallucinations, with faster onset and a greater likelihood of recurrence or persistence.
The biology underlying this difference is well understood. When stimulants are taken orally at guideline-recommended doses, they produce moderate, gradual changes in neurotransmitter activity central to attention and executive functions. The brain tolerates these changes relatively well. Non-therapeutic use, by contrast, often involves much higher doses that are frequently delivered through non-oral routes such as injection or smoking. This produces a rapid, excessive surge in dopamine activity, which is precisely the neurochemical pattern associated with psychotic symptoms.
The takeaway here is not that therapeutic stimulant use is risk-free, but that risk is strongly modulated by dose, route of administration, and individual psychiatric history. Clinicians are advised to monitor patients with pre-existing mood or psychotic disorders, particularly carefully.
A Nationwide Study Focuses on Methylphenidate Specifically:
Where the meta-analysis cast a wide net, a large-scale population study by Healy and colleagues drilled into a specific and clinically pressing question: does methylphenidate (the most commonly prescribed ADHD medication, also known as Ritalin) increase the risk of developing a psychotic disorder?
To find out, the researchers analyzed Finland's national health insurance database, tracking nearly 700,000 individuals diagnosed with ADHD. Finland's single-payer system made this kind of comprehensive, long-term tracking possible in a way that fragmented healthcare systems rarely allow.
Critically, the team adjusted for a range of confounding factors that have clouded previous research, including sex, parental education, parental history of psychosis, and the number of psychiatric visits and diagnoses prior to the ADHD diagnosis itself (a proxy for illness severity). After these adjustments, they found no significant difference in the risk of schizophrenia or non-affective psychosis between patients treated with methylphenidate and those who remained unmedicated. This held true even among patients with four or more years of continuous methylphenidate use.
The Take-Away:
When considered together, these studies offer meaningful reassurance without encouraging complacency.
For patients and families weighing ADHD treatment, the evidence suggests that methylphenidate used as prescribed does not increase psychosis risk, even over years of use. The rare cases of stimulant-associated psychosis in therapeutic settings are typically linked to high doses, pre-existing vulnerabilities, or both, and tend to resolve with discontinuation.
For clinicians, the findings reinforce the importance of baseline psychiatric assessment before initiating stimulant therapy, ongoing monitoring in patients with mood or psychotic disorder histories, and clear patient education about the risks of dose escalation or non-oral use.
The picture that emerges is one of a meaningful distinction between a medication used carefully within its therapeutic window and a drug misused outside of it. This distinction matters enormously when communicating risk to patients, policymakers, and the public.
ADHD is commonly treated with medication, but these treatments frequently cause side effects such as reduced appetite and disrupted sleep. Psychological and behavioral therapies exist as alternatives, but they tend to be expensive, hard to scale, and generally do little to address the motor difficulties that many children with ADHD experience — things like clumsy movement, poor handwriting, or difficulty with coordination.
Physical exercise has attracted attention as a more accessible option. But research findings have been mixed, partly because studies vary so widely in how exercise is delivered and what outcomes they measure. This meta-analysis, drawing on 21 studies involving 850 children and adolescents aged 5–20 with a clinical ADHD diagnosis, tries to cut through that noise.
Two types of motor skills
The researchers separated motor skills into two broad categories:
The Data:
Gross motor skills (16 studies, 613 participants)
Overall, exercise produced medium-to-large improvements in gross motor skills. The strongest gains were in:
No significant gains were found in balance or flexibility.
Fine motor skills (13 studies, 553 participants):
Exercise also produced medium-to-large improvements in fine motor skills, specifically:
The Results: What Kind of Exercise Works Best?
Two factors stood out consistently across both gross and fine motor skills: session length and frequency.
The type of exercise mattered; structured programs with clear motor-skill components (rather than unstructured physical activity) yielded stronger results.
These results are not without caveats, however. The authors urge caution in interpreting these findings. A few key limitations include:
The Bottom Line
This meta-analysis provides tentative moderate evidence that structured physical exercise can meaningfully support motor skill development in children and adolescents with ADHD — particularly when sessions run longer than 45 minutes and occur at least three times a week. The benefits appear most robust for object control, locomotion, handwriting, and manual dexterity.
That said, the evidence base still has real gaps. The authors call for better-designed, fully randomized controlled trials with consistent methods, standardized ways of measuring exercise intensity, and greater inclusion of children and adolescents who are not on medication — all of which would help clarify when, how, and for whom exercise works best.
Treatment guidelines for childhood ADHD recommend medications as the first-line treatment for most youth with ADHD. Still, concerns about side effects and long-term outcomes have increased interest in non-pharmacological approaches. Researchers at Saudi Arabian Armed Forces hospitals recently conducted a network meta-analysis comparing several interventions, including mindfulness-based therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral parent training, neurofeedback, yoga, virtual reality programs, and digital working memory training.
Although the authors aimed to “provide a rigorous methodological approach to combine evidence from multiple treatment comparisons,” the study illustrates several pitfalls that arise when network meta-analysis is applied to a thin and heterogeneous evidence base.
What Network Meta-analysis Can and Cannot Do:
Network meta-analysis extends conventional meta-analysis by combining:
When the evidence network is large and well-connected, this approach can provide useful estimates of comparative effectiveness among many treatments.
This method is not always best, however, as many networks are sparse. This is especially true in areas such as complementary or behavioral therapies. In sparse networks, estimates rely heavily on indirect comparisons, and single studies can exert disproportionate influence over the results.
Conventional meta-analysis focuses on heterogeneity, meaning differences in results across studies within the same comparison.
Network meta-analysis must additionally evaluate consistency, whether the direct and indirect evidence agree.
However, when comparisons are supported by only one or two studies and the network is weakly connected, statistical tests for heterogeneity and consistency have very little power. In practice, this means the analysis often cannot detect problems even if they are present.
Sparse networks also make publication bias difficult to evaluate. This concern is particularly relevant in fields dominated by small trials and emerging therapies.
Why Such Treatment Rankings Are Appealing, but Potentially Problematic:
Many network meta-analyses summarize results using SUCRA, which estimates the probability that each treatment ranks best.
SUCRA, or Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking, is a key statistical metric in network meta-analyses. It is used to rank treatments by efficacy or safety. This is achieved by summarizing the probabilities of a treatment's rank into a single percentage, where a higher SUCRA value indicates a superior treatment. Ultimately, SUCRA helps pinpoint the most effective intervention among the ones compared.
Again, in well-supported networks, SUCRA can provide a useful summary of comparative effectiveness. But in sparse networks, rankings can create an illusion of precision, because treatments supported by a single small study may appear highly ranked simply due to random variation.
What Did this New Network Meta-analysis Study?
The study includes 16 trials with a total of 806 participants. But the structure of the evidence network is far weaker than this headline number suggests.
Based on the underlying studies:
This produces a very thin network, in which several interventions rely entirely on single studies.
Another challenge is that the included trials measure different outcomes. Some evaluate ADHD symptom severity, while others measure parental stress.
When studies use different outcome scales, meta-analysis typically relies on standardized measures such as the standardized mean difference to allow comparisons across studies. However, the analysis reports only mean-average differences, making it difficult to interpret the relative effect sizes.
Study Issues (including Limited Evidence and Risk of Bias):
The intervention supported by the largest number of studies (family mindfulness-based therapy) was one of the two approaches reported as producing statistically significant results. The other was BrainFit, which is supported by only a single previous trial.
Despite this limited evidence base, the study ranks interventions using SUCRA:
Notably, none of the runner-up interventions demonstrated statistically significant efficacy.
The authors acknowledge methodological limitations in the included studies:
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) exhibited notable concerns, as blinding for active treatment was not applicable in most studies.”
Such limitations are common in behavioral intervention trials, but they further increase uncertainty in already small evidence networks.
Conclusions:
The study ultimately concludes:
“This network meta-analysis supports MBT and BPT as effective non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD.”
However, the evidence underlying these claims is limited. Some analyses rely on very small numbers of studies and participants, and the network structure depends heavily on indirect comparisons.
Network meta-analysis can be a powerful tool when applied to a large, consistent, and well-connected body of evidence. When the evidence base is sparse, however, the resulting rankings and comparisons may appear statistically sophisticated while resting on a fragile evidentiary foundation.
_logo%201.svg)
