What would you like to find today?

Background

A meta-analysis examined whether noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques could help reduce core symptoms of ADHD and improve cognitive function. NIBS refers to techniques that stimulate brain activity using low electrical or magnetic currents applied from outside the head. They studied transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), while newer methods like tRNS (random noise) and tACS (alternating current) lacked enough studies to be included in the analysis.

Methods

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—considered the gold standard in clinical research—were included in the review. For tDCS, the results were promising:

-A meta-analysis of 12 studies (582 participants) showed small but statistically significant improvements in inhibitory control (the ability to stop or delay responses).

-Nine studies (390 participants) showed small-to-medium improvements in working memory.

-Two smaller studies (94 participants) hinted at improvement in cognitive flexibility, but the results were not strong enough to be considered reliable.

-Seven studies (277 participants) found medium-to-large improvements in linattention, though results varied significantly between studies.

 Hyperactivity and impulsivity showed some improvement, but again, the number of studies was too small to draw firm conclusions.

 For rTMS, however, the results were not as encouraging. A meta-analysis of three studies (137 participants) found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms.

Conclusion

While the results suggest that tDCS may offer some benefit for executive functions and attention in people with ADHD—especially when targeting specific brain areas like the F3/F4 regions (roughly over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex)—the authors emphasize the need for further research. Most studies didn’t include long-term follow-up, and there’s still a lack of consistency in how stimulation is applied across studies.  Moreover, even when positive findings emerged for executive functions is not clear how these translate into changes that are meaningful for the patient.

Importantly, this study doesn’t suggest that NIBS should replace standard treatments. Although the paper highlights challenges with medication adherence and side effects, ADHD medications and behavior therapies remain the most well-established and effective treatments for most patients. The improvements seen with NIBS so far are relatively small and preliminary in comparison.

Instead, the findings support the idea that NIBS could one day serve as a complementary tool—especially for individuals who don’t respond well to existing treatments. But until more rigorous and long-term studies are done, NIBS should be viewed as an experimental approach, not a substitute.

‍

ADHD is associated with deficits in executive functions. These are mental processes that enable individuals to plan, focus attention, manage tasks, and regulate emotions. These skills encompass working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control, which are crucial for goal-directed behavior and decision-making. 

Working memory, which temporarily stores and processes information, contributes to language development by helping individuals make sense of what they read or hear.  

Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to change perspectives, adapt thinking strategies, adjust to changing needs and priorities, recognize errors, and grasp opportunities.  

Inhibition switching involves intentional control of attention and emotions, suppressing automatic responses when necessary to prevent inappropriate behavior.  

These elements are critical to academic, social, and professional success. 

An international study team (Li et al.) conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the efficacy of physical activity for improving executive functions among children with ADHD aged 6 to 12. 

Meta-analysis of eleven RCTs encompassing 388 children reported a medium-to-large effect size improvement in cognitive flexibility. However, it found no benefit from aerobic exercise (such as running, jumping). When limited to the nine studies with 301 children that focused on cognitively engaging exercise (such as soccer and water sports that require constant monitoring of other players and strategizing), it found a large effect size improvement. Correcting for possible publication bias had no effect on the outcome. 

Meta-analysis of nine RCTs totaling 398 children reported a large effect size improvement in working memory. Once again, it found no benefit from aerobic exercise. Focusing on the seven RCTs with 288 children that used cognitively engaging exercise, it found a very large effect size improvement. There was no sign of publication bias. 

Meta-analysis of fourteen RCTs combining 579 children reported a small-to-medium effect size improvement in inhibition switching. But whereas it found a medium effect size improvement for shorter interventions of less than an hour (eight RCTs, 334 children), it found no benefit from interventions lasting an hour or more (six RCTs, 245 children. Again, there was no sign of publication bias. 

The team concluded, “Our study shows that physical activity interventions have a positive effect on improving executive function in school-age children with ADHD, with cognitive-engaging exercises showing greater benefits across three executive function measures.” 

A Chinese study team (Yang et al.) performed a related meta-analysis on the effect of exercise on inhibitory control in adults. Combining eight RCTs with a total of 372 participants, it reported a very large effect size improvement in inhibitory control, primarily from regular exercise. However, the effects were heavily influenced by a couple of outliers. The team claimed to have performed a sensitivity analysis but offered no evidence. Likewise, they noted signs of publication bias but did not use the standard trim-and-fill analysis to correct for it. 

Another Chinese study team (Xiangqin Song et al.) examined the effect of exercise on working memory in children and adolescents.  

Meta-analysis of 17 RCTs encompassing 419 participants found a medium effect size improvement in working memory. The large effect size improvement for cognitive aerobic exercise (4 RCTs, 233 participants) was twice the effect size for simple aerobic exercise (8 RCTs, 397 participants), though this meta-analysis still found a small-to-medium effect size gain from the latter. There was no sign of publication bias.  

The team concluded, “The results indicate that cognitive-aerobic exercise and ball sports are significantly more effective than other types of exercise interventions in improving working memory. This difference may be attributed to the varying cognitive load, task complexity, and the degree of activation of executive functions across different exercise types. The findings suggest that when designing exercise interventions for children with ADHD, priority should be given to exercise types with higher cognitive load in order to more effectively enhance working memory.” 

A joint Australian-U.S. team (Singh et al.) conducted a meta-meta-analysis on the effect of exercise on executive functions, that is, a meta-analysis of previous meta-analyses of RCTs.  

Combining ten separate meta-analyses with well over 2,800 children and adolescents with ADHD, it reported large effect size improvements in executive functions overall. There was no further breakdown by type of executive function and type of physical activity.  

The team concluded, “While exercise was seen to have a moderate and similar positive impact across all populations with respect to general cognition and memory, benefits for executive function were particularly marked in individuals with ADHD. This subgroup was unique in demonstrating a large effect size. This could be attributed to the task selection and the fact that many ADHD studies involved children. While the exact reason for this finding is unclear, there is evidence to suggest that impairments in executive function are common among individuals with ADHD. As such, it is plausible that this population may have a greater capacity for improvement due to starting from a lower baseline, compared with those with ‘normal’ executive function.” 

Another Chinese study team (Yagang Song et al.) performed a meta-analysis of RCTs examining the effects of physical exercise on anxiety, depression, and emotion regulation among children and adolescents with ADHD.  

Meta-analysis of eleven studies with a combined total of 384 participants reported a medium effect size reduction in symptoms of anxiety, with a dose-effect response. Physical exercise once a week had no significant effect, while twice a week was associated with a medium effect size reduction, and three or more times a week with a very large effect size improvement. Moderate intensity exercise was three times more effective than low intensity exercise.  

Meta-analysis of seven studies encompassing 187 individuals similarly reported a medium effect size reduction in symptoms of depression. Once again, moderate intensity was far more effective than low intensity exercise. 

Meta-analysis of seven studies totaling 429 children and adolescents reported a very large effect size improvement in emotion regulation, especially for physical exercise conducted at least twice a week. 

There was no sign of publication bias in the anxiety, depression, or emotion regulation findings. 

The team concluded, “Physical exercise demonstrated a substantial overall impact on enhancing anxiety, depression, and emotional regulation in children with ADHD, exhibiting a dose-response effect correlated with the period, frequency, duration, and intensity of the exercise. This investigation ... presents an additional evidence-based therapeutic approach for the considerable number of children with ADHD who are not appropriate candidates for pharmacological intervention.” 

A joint U.S.-Hong Kong study team (Liu et al.) performed a meta-analysis exploring the effect of physical exercise on motor proficiency. Motor proficiency includes both gross motor skills (like walking and running) and fine motor skills (like writing and buttoning).  

Meta-analysis of ten studies encompassing 413 children and adolescents with ADHD reported a very large effect size improvement in motor proficiency from physical exercise. The gains for object control, fine manual control, and manual coordination were roughly twice the gains for body coordination. There was no sign of publication bias. 

Finally, a Spanish research team (González-Devesa et al.) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effect of exercise on objectively measured sleep status among persons with ADHD. 

Meta-analysis of three RCTs with a combined total of 131 individuals that used accelerometers to measure sleep duration reported no significant effect one way or the other from exercise. 

The team concluded, “The existing evidence regarding the use of exercise to manage sleep problems in individuals with ADHD remains inconclusive. Preliminary findings from this review suggest a potential positive effect of exercise on self-reported sleep quality; however, its efficacy in improving sleep duration could not be confirmed.” 

The Take-Away:

An ideal exercise regimen for children with ADHD should focus on cognitively engaging physical activities rather than simple aerobic exercise. Sports and activities that require strategic thinking, attention to others’ actions, and rapid decision-making—such as soccer, martial arts, or water-based team sports—gave the best results, especially for working memory and cognitive flexibility. These types of exercise also show strong benefits for emotional regulation, reducing anxiety and depression, and enhancing motor proficiency.

To maximize benefits, the regimen should include moderate-intensity sessions at least two to three times per week, each lasting less than an hour, as longer durations appear less effective for improving inhibitory control. This structured, cognitively demanding approach offers an evidence-based, non-pharmacologic treatment option for children with ADHD, particularly for those who cannot or prefer not to use medication.  We need, however, more work to determine if exercise will provide the same symptom reduction and protection from adverse outcomes as has been shown for medications.

‍

We know that Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition with strong biological and genetic underpinnings; However, emerging research suggests that early environmental influences—particularly parent–child interactions—may shape how ADHD traits, such as impulsivity and delay aversion, are expressed during development.

This longitudinal study explored whether negative parental reactions during moments of delay contribute to the intensification of ADHD-related behaviors in preschool-aged children. A total of 112 mother–child pairs from the UK and Hong Kong participated. Children were screened for ADHD traits using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, ensuring a range of symptom severity. 

The experimental task—the Parent–Child Delay Frustration Task (PC-DeFT)—was designed to assess how children responded to brief, unpredictable waiting periods during a game-like activity, and how parents reacted in turn. During the task, children operated a button to change a red light to green, allowing their parent to retrieve a toy item. While most trials had no delay, six included unexpected 5–10 second pauses, creating mild frustration. Trained observers recorded children’s behavioral responses and parents' emotional reactions.

At follow-up (12–18 months later), teacher ratings revealed that children whose parents showed more negative reactions during delay trials (e.g., impatience, criticism) were more likely to exhibit increases in ADHD traits—especially impulsivity and difficulty waiting. Importantly, this link was mediated by increases in delay aversion, a motivational style where the child seeks to avoid frustrating waiting experiences. No such associations were found in free play or non-delay tasks, underscoring the specificity of this interaction.

The study’s findings suggest that, while these interactions do not cause ADHD, early social environments can influence how and when symptoms manifest. Interventions aimed at supporting positive parent–child interactions—particularly in challenging contexts like waiting—may help shape the developmental trajectory of children predisposed to ADHD.

‍

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common condition affecting children and adolescents worldwide, characterized by symptoms such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention. While traditional treatments like medication and behavioral therapy are often used, some individuals are turning to complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) for help. One such option gaining attention is acupuncture. But does it really work for ADHD?

A recent comprehensive study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating ADHD symptoms. Here’s a breakdown of the findings, with a focus on the age groups included in the research and what these findings could mean for ADHD treatment options.

What the Study Explored

The study in question conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) of acupuncture trials for ADHD, comparing its effects to traditional treatments such as pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy. The researchers focused on acupuncture’s impact on core ADHD symptoms like hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems, while also exploring how acupuncture might help with other issues, such as learning difficulties and psychosomatic symptoms.

One key feature of this study was the inclusion of a broad age range of participants, specifically children and adolescents. These two groups are the most commonly diagnosed with ADHD, and their responses to treatments can vary significantly. Understanding how acupuncture works for these age groups is critical for evaluating its effectiveness as an ADHD treatment.

Here’s what the study found across the different age groups:

• Children: Acupuncture appeared to be particularly effective in reducing hyperactivity and impulsivity in younger children with ADHD. These symptoms, often more prominent in younger populations, responded well to acupuncture when used alongside other treatments like medication.
  
  
• Adolescents: For adolescents, acupuncture seemed to improve both hyperactivity and inattention, two symptoms that can often become more challenging as children grow older. This age group also benefited from acupuncture’s ability to reduce side effects from ADHD medications, such as irritability or sleep disturbances.
  
  
• Combined Effects for Both Groups: When acupuncture was used in combination with pharmacotherapy, it also helped reduce side effects such as sleep problems and appetite loss in both children and adolescents. This could make it an attractive adjunctive treatment for those already on medication but experiencing undesirable effects.
  
  
• Inattention and Conduct Problems: For both children and adolescents, acupuncture used in conjunction with either medication or behavioral therapy showed notable improvements in inattention and conduct problems—two of the most difficult symptoms of ADHD to manage.
  
  
• Learning Difficulties and Psychosomatic Symptoms: Interestingly, the combination of acupuncture and medication provided significant improvements in learning difficulties, which are particularly relevant for children with ADHD. Meanwhile, acupuncture paired with behavioral therapy had a positive impact on psychosomatic symptoms, such as anxiety or stress, that often co-occur with ADHD.
  
  

Despite these promising results, the study also highlighted several limitations:

• Study Quality Issues: The quality of the studies reviewed was often low, with many trials lacking the rigorous controls needed for high confidence in their results. For example, only a small number of trials used objective ADHD diagnostic tools, which could lead to biases in assessing acupuncture’s effectiveness.
  
  
• Need for More Research: There is a lack of large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with placebo treatments, which makes it hard to determine whether acupuncture’s effects are truly therapeutic or simply a placebo.

Conclusion: Is Acupuncture a Good Option for ADHD?

In short, and as is so often the way of evidence-based medicine, we still can’t say with absolute certainty one way or the other. These studies may show promise in improving hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems– in both children and adolescents. However, the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend it as a primary treatment. While it may serve as a helpful complement to standard therapies, especially for those struggling with medication side effects or access to behavioral therapy, more research is needed to establish its effectiveness.

‍

This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD. 

‍

The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist

‍

The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion. 

‍

Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.  

‍

The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time

‍

The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.

‍

The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn 

‍

The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational. 

‍

For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”

‍

The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.

‍

The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed. 

‍

For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary

habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.

‍

Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.

‍

The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death. 

‍

The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.

Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.

‍

In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.

‍

Recent research suggests that inflammation may play a role in ADHD. Inflammation, marked by elevated proteins and cytokines, affects brain development and structure. Evidence suggests it plays a role in the development of ADHD, making the study of inflammatory markers crucial. 

The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is a cost-effective test for predicting outcomes of chronic inflammation and neuroimmune diseases. Studies show PLR may be an important inflammatory marker in the pathophysiology of ADHD in children. 

The Study:

A Chinese study team used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics of the United States to investigate the association between PLR and ADHD in children aged 6–14. 

The team identified ADHD through prescriptions of ADHD medications. 

After exclusions for missing information, the study encompassed 1,455 children. 

The authors adjusted for the following potential confounders: sex, age, race, poverty-to-income ratio, maternal age at childbirth, smoking during pregnancy, asthma, health insurance status, dietary inflammatory index, monocyte count, segmented neutrophil count, eosinophil count, and basophil count. 

They also split the PLR results into quartiles, with the first quartile having the lowest readings. 

Prescriptions of ADHD medications were twice as frequent among children in the second quartile as they were among children in the first quartile. They were four times as frequent among children in the third quartile than among children in the first quartile.  

Conclusion: 

The team concluded, “These findings further support the potential role of inflammation in the onset and development of ADHD, providing preliminary evidence for PLR as a potential biomarker for ADHD and suggesting its possible use in identifying high-risk populations. However, considering the limitations of this study, future research should be designed as larger-scale, prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trials to validate these findings and further explore the relationship between inflammatory mechanisms and ADHD.” 

In other words, this study suggests that while high PLR values may serve as a potential biomarker for ADHD, particularly in specific high-risk groups, further research is needed to confirm these findings and fully understand the role of inflammation in ADHD development. Larger, more robust studies will be crucial to validating PLR as a reliable tool for identifying at-risk populations.

‍

ADHD is the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder. Nearly 1% of pregnant women in the Nordic countries and more than 1% in the United States are prescribed ADHD medications, ranking these among the most commonly used medications during pregnancy. However, the safety of exposing a fetus to ADHD medications is still uncertain, prompting many expectant mothers to stop using them out of fear for their unborn child’s well-being. 

The Study:

A European research team conducted a comprehensive nationwide study on the safety of ADHD medications during pregnancy using populations from Sweden and Denmark. The Swedish population was studied first, followed by inclusion of a separate study of the Danish population. Results were then combined through meta-analysis. Nordic countries, with their single-payer national health insurance systems and national population registers, facilitate the tracking of residents’ health from birth to death, thus providing robust data for such studies. 

The team accounted for various potential confounders, including maternal age, year of delivery, whether the mother was a first-time parent, self-reported smoking during pregnancy, and any psychiatric history. They also considered psychiatric inpatient or outpatient treatment received within two years before pregnancy, as well as the dispensing of other psychotropic medications during pregnancy, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiseizure medications, and anti-anxiety medications. Additionally, they examined the highest level of maternal education and civil status at delivery (married or cohabiting compared to single, divorced, or widowed). 

Out of 861,650 Swedish children, 2,257 were exposed to ADHD medications during pregnancy. Another 3,917 were born to mothers who discontinued ADHD medications before pregnancy.  

Children exposed to ADHD medications had lower rates of ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and overall neurodevelopmental disorders; however, none of these differences were significant. 

Limiting the analysis to siblings to control for family environmental influences and genetics likewise found no significant differences.  

A meta-analysis combining the Swedish results with a separately conducted nationwide population study in neighboring Denmark similarly found no significant differences between children exposed to ADHD medications during pregnancy and children born to mothers who discontinued ADHD medications before pregnancy. 

Conclusion:

The team concluded, “Overall, our study provides reassuring evidence that continuing ADHD medication during pregnancy does not increase the risk of long-term NDDs [neurodevelopmental disorders] in offspring." 

‍

A new large-scale study has shed light on which treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are most effective and best tolerated. 

Researchers analyzed 113 randomized controlled trials involving nearly 15,000 adults diagnosed with ADHD. These studies included medications (like stimulants and atomoxetine), psychological therapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy), and newer approaches like neurostimulation.

The Findings

Stimulant medications (lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate) as well as selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (atomoxetine) were the only treatments that consistently reduced core ADHD symptoms—both from the perspective of patients and clinicians. It may be worth noting that atomoxetine, while effective, was less well tolerated, with more people dropping out due to side effects.

Psychological therapies such as CBT, mindfulness, and psychoeducation showed some benefits, but mainly according to clinician ratings—not necessarily from the patients themselves. Neurostimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation also showed some improvements, but only in limited contexts and with small sample sizes.  

Conclusion 

So, what does this mean for people navigating ADHD in adulthood? Stimulant medications remain the most effective treatment for managing ADHD symptoms day-to-day but nonstimulant medication are not far behind, which is good given the problems we’ve had with stimulant shortages. This study also supports structured psychotherapy as a viable treatment option, especially when used in conjunction with medication. 

The study emphasizes the importance of ongoing, long-term research and the need for treatment plans that are tailored to the individual ADHD patient– Managing adult ADHD effectively calls for flexible, patient-centered care.

‍

‍

-----

Struggling with side effects or not seeing improvement in your day-to-day life? Dive into a step-by-step journey that starts with the basics of screening and diagnosis, detailing the clinical criteria healthcare professionals use so you can be certain you receive an accurate evaluation. This isn’t just another ADHD guide—it’s your toolkit for getting the care you deserve. This is the kind of care that doesn’t just patch up symptoms but helps you unlock your potential and build the life you want. Whether you’ve just been diagnosed or you’ve been living with ADHD for years, this booklet is here to empower you to take control of your healthcare journey.

Proceeds from the sale of this book are used to support www.ADHDevidence.org.

Get the guide now– Navigating ADHD Care: A Practical Guide for Adults

‍

Precocious puberty (PP) is defined as the onset of secondary sex characteristics before age 8 in girls or age 9 in boys.  

Because it accelerates skeletal maturation by prematurely shutting down the cartilage growth plate at the tip of long bones, it tends to lead to shorter height in adulthood. It is also known to place an additional psychological burden on children, especially girls. Girls are four to 38 times more likely to develop PP than boys. 

Taiwan has a single-payer national health insurance system, called National Health Insurance, that encompasses 99.6% of the island’s population. The Ministry of Health and Welfare uses it to maintain the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), enabling researchers to conduct nationwide population studies. 

Using this database, a Taiwanese study team investigated the relationship between ADHD and precocious puberty among children and adolescents (under 18). And because methylphenidate (MPH) is the only psychostimulant approved for the treatment of ADHD in Taiwan, the team also explored the effect of MPH on this relationship. 

Most diagnoses of ADHD in the NHIRD are made by board-certified psychiatrists, enhancing diagnostic validity. 

Of the more than 3.3 million persons born in Taiwan between 1997 and 2001, 186,681 were diagnosed with ADHD. Of these, 122,302 were prescribed MPH. 

After adjusting for sex, low-income households, and neuropsychiatric comorbidities, children diagnosed with ADHD were twice as likely to be diagnosed with PP. This held equally true for boys and girls. 

However, children diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed MPH were more than a third less likely to subsequently be diagnosed with PP than those diagnosed with ADHD but not prescribed MPH.  

For girls with ADHD, who without an MPH prescription were nine times more likely than boys with ADHD to be diagnosed with PP, an MPH prescription reduced that ratio to five times more likely than boys with ADHD and prescribed MPH. 

That suggests a strong protective effect of MPH.  

The team concluded, “Our study found that children with ADHD were at a greater risk of PP, and girls with ADHD were a particularly vulnerable group. … MPH appeared to be protective against PP in patients with ADHD, especially in girls. However, these preliminary results need further validation.” 

‍