Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
October 21, 2025
Children and adolescents with ADHD tend to be less active and more sedentary than their typically developing peers. This is concerning, since physical activity benefits mental, physical, and social development. For youth with ADHD, being active can improve symptoms like inattention, working memory, and inhibitory control.
A major barrier to physical activity for children and adolescents with ADHD is limited motor competence. This stems from challenges in developing basic motor skills and more complex abilities needed for sports and advanced movements.
Difficulties in developing fundamental movement skills – such as locomotor (running, jumping), object-control (throwing, catching), and stability skills (balancing, turning) – can reduce motor competence and limit physical activity. These basic movements are learned and refined with practice and age, not innate abilities.
To date, research on the link between ADHD and motor competence has remained inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis by a Spanish research team therefore aimed to determine whether children and adolescents with ADHD differ in motor competence from those with typical development (TD).
Studies had to include children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They had to involve a full motor assessment battery, not just one test, and present motor competence data for both ADHD and TD groups.
The team excluded studies involving participants with other neurodevelopmental disorders or cognitive impairments, unless separate data for the ADHD subgroup were reported.
Meta-analysis of six studies combining 323 children and adolescents found that typically developing individuals were twelve times more likely to score in the 5th percentile of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children as their peers diagnosed with ADHD. They were also three times more likely to score in the 15th percentile (five studies, 289 participants). Results were consistent across the studies (low heterogeneity). All included studies were randomized.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 198 participants using the Test of Gross Motor Development reported significant deficits in both locomotor skills and object control skills among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD relative to their typically developing peers. In this case, however, results were inconsistent across studies (very high heterogeneity), and one of the studies was unrandomized. Because the team published only unstandardized mean differences, there was no indication of effect sizes.
Meta-analysis of two studies encompassing 164 participants using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency similarly yielded significant deficits among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD relative to their typically developing peers, but in this case with low heterogeneity. Notably, one of the two studies was not randomized.
Moreover, the team made no assessment of publication bias.
The team concluded, “The findings of this review indicate that children and adolescents with ADHD show significantly lower levels of motor competence compared to their TD peers. This trend was evident across a range of validated assessment tools, including the MABC, BOT, TGMD, and other standardized test batteries. Future research should aim to reduce methodological heterogeneity and further investigate the influence of factors such as ADHD subtypes and comorbid conditions on motor development trajectories.”
However, without a publication bias assessment, reliance on unrandomized studies in two of the tests, no indication of effect size in the same two tests, and small sample sizes, these results are at best suggestive, and will require further research to confirm.
Nerea Blanco-Martínez, Daniel González-Devesa, Carlos Ayán-Pérez, and José Carlos Diz-Gómez, “Differences in Motor Competence Between Children and Adolescents With and Without ADHD: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2025), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07033-1.
Computerized cognitive training (CCT) uses computers to try to strengthen cognitive skills and processes, reduce ADHD symptoms, and improve executive functioning. Executive functions are cognitive processes and mental skills that help individuals plan, monitor, and successfully execute their goals.
CCT programs target one or more cognitive processes such as motor inhibition, interference inhibition, sustained attention, and working memory. They ramp up task difficulty as performance improves. The goal is to harness the brain’s inherent adaptability (neuroplasticity) to boost performance.
A European study team that previously probed the efficacy of CCT through meta-analysis had been unable to provide a robust estimate of effect size due to an insufficient number of high-quality trials with probably blinded outcomes. Noting that “there have been a considerable number of new RCTs [randomized controlled trials] published, many with larger samples, well-controlled designs and blinded outcomes,” the team performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
They included RCTs with participants of any age who either had a clinical diagnosis of ADHD or were above cut-off on validated ADHD rating scales. RCTs had to have been peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, and to have reported a validated outcome measure of ADHD symptoms, neuropsychological processes, and/or academic outcomes.
Fourteen RCTs with a combined total of 631 participants had probably blinded outcomes. Meta-analysis of these studies yielded no significant effect on either overall ADHD symptoms or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms. There was a marginally significant reduction in inattention symptoms, but the effect size was small. Between-study variation (heterogeneity) was negligible and there was no sign of publication bias.
Regarding academic outcomes, meta-analyses revealed no gain in arithmetic ability or reading fluency. There was a small but not statistically significant improvement in reading comprehension. Heterogeneity was minimal, with no indication of publication bias.
With two related exceptions, meta-analyses of RCTs measuring executive functions likewise reported no significant improvements in attention, interference inhibition (initial stage in controlling impulsive behavior), motor inhibition (follow-up stage in controlling impulsive behavior), non-verbal reasoning, processing speed, and set shifting (the ability to unconsciously shift attention between one task and another).
The exceptions were for working memory tasks. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs with a combined 753 participants reported a highly significant small-to-medium effect size improvement in verbal working memory. A separate meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a total of 441 participants similarly reported a highly significant improvement in visuospatial working memory, this time with medium effect size.
The team concluded, “There was no empirical support for the use of CCT as a stand-alone intervention for ADHD symptoms based on the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs conducted to date. Small effects, of likely limited clinical importance, on inattention symptoms were found – but these were limited to the setting in which the intervention was delivered. Robust evidence of small- to-moderate improvements in visual-spatial and verbal STM/WM tasks did not transfer to other domains of executive functions or academic outcomes.”
ADHD treatment usually involves a combination of medication and behavioral therapy. However, medication can cause side effects, adherence problems, and resistance from patients or caregivers.
Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on ADHD. With little research specifically examining game-based interventions for children and adolescents with ADHD or conducting meta-analyses to quantify their treatment effectiveness, a Korean study team performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to do just that.
The Study:
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. The team excluded RCTs that included participants with psychiatric conditions other than ADHD.
Eight studies met these standards. Four had a high risk of bias.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs with a combined total of 481 participants reported no significant improvements in either working memory or inhibition from game-based digital interventions relative to controls.
Likewise, meta-analysis of three RCTs encompassing 160 children and adolescents found no significant improvement in shifting tasks relative to controls.
And meta-analysis of two RCTs combining 131 participants reported no significant gains in initiating, planning, organizing, and monitoring abilities, nor in emotional control.
The only positive results were from two RCTs with only 90 total participants that indicated some improvement in visuospatial short-term memory and visuospatial working memory.
There was no indication of effect size, because the team used mean differences instead of standardized mean differences.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “The meta-analysis revealed that game-based interventions significantly improved cognitive functions: (a) visuospatial short-term memory … and (b) visuospatial working memory … However, effects on behavioral aspects such as inhibition and monitoring … were not statistically significant, suggesting limited behavioral improvement following the interventions.”
Simply put, the current evidence does not support the effectiveness of game-based interventions in improving behavioral symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents. The only positive results were from two studies with a small combined sample size, which does not qualify as a genuine meta-analysis. All the other meta-analyses performed with larger sample sizes reported no benefits.
Youths with ADHD are known to be more prone to language problems when compared with typically developing peers. To what extent does that affect their ability to share a narrative with others?
A Danish research team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed medical literature to explore this question. They stressed that this ability is important because "a narrative is a genre of discourse - a form of social communication used to derive meaning from experiences and to construct a shared understanding of events. In other words, it is the fundamental ability of orally producing a coherent story." They focused on the production of narratives rather than comprehension.
Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants. They had to compare aspects of oral narrative production in children and adolescents with either a formal ADHD diagnosis or a score above a clinical cut-off on a validated ADHD rating scale to a control group of typically developing youths. Youths with confirmed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or language impairment diagnoses were excluded. There were no constraints on IQ.
The team found sixteen studies with a combined total of 1,015 youths that met these criteria and were suitable for meta-analysis.
They examined seven aspects of oral narrative production:
· Coherence: A story structure that is logical and easy to follow in cause and sequence. There is a clear beginning, middle, and end. There are goals, attempts, and outcomes. A meta-analysis of nine studies with a combined total of 750 participants found youths with ADHD less coherent than their typically developing peers, with a medium effect size. There was virtually no between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
· Cohesion: This ensures referencing of events and characters in a manner that enables the listener to grasp how characters, events, and ideas in a story are related. Ambiguous or contradictory references get in the way of this. A meta-analysis of eight studies with a combined total of 501 participants found youths with ADHD showed less cohesion than their typically developing peers, with a medium effect size. Again, with virtually no between-study heterogeneity, and no sign of publication bias.
· Disruptions: These can be sequence errors, misinterpretations, embellishments, or confabulations - fabricating imaginary experiences as compensation for loss of memory. A meta-analysis of six studies with 389 participants found youths with ADHD had more disruptions than their typically developing peers, with a small-to-medium effect size. There was virtually no between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
· Fluency: Best explained in terms of errors that interfere with this quality, such as false starts, repeating words or sentences, and abandoning sentences without completing them. A meta-analysis of four studies with 220 participants found no difference in fluency between youths with ADHD and their typically developing peers.
· Production: This is a measure of output -overall length of the story, number of sentences, number of words. After adjusting for evidence of publication bias, a meta-analysis of twelve studies with 645 participants found no difference here.
· Syntactic complexity: This includes the extent of vocabulary and the use of proper grammar. A meta-analysis of six studies with 272 participants found youths with ADHD displayed less syntactic complexity than their typically developing peers, with a small-to-medium effect size. There was virtually no between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bi
· Internal state language: References to perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. There were only two studies with 130 participants, so no meta-analysis was performed.
The authors concluded, "the results from the current meta-analysis suggest that children with ADHD have impairments in their narrative language. In particular, children with ADHD produce narratives that are less coherent, less cohesive, less syntactically complex, and include more disruptive errors than typically developing children do."
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)
