Meta-analysis Finds Strong Link Between Parental and Offspring ADHD

A large international research team has just released a detailed analysis of studies looking at the connection between parents' mental health conditions and their children's mental health, particularly focusing on ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). This analysis, called a meta-analysis, involved carefully examining previous studies on the subject. By September 2022, they had found 211 studies, involving more than 23 million people, that could be combined for their analysis.

Most of the studies focused on mental disorders other than ADHD. However, when they specifically looked at ADHD, they found five studies with over 6.7 million participants. These studies showed that children of parents with ADHD were more than eight times as likely to have ADHD compared to children whose parents did not have ADHD. The likelihood of this result happening by chance was extremely low, meaning the connection between parental ADHD and child ADHD is strong.

Understanding the Numbers: How Likely Is It for a Child to Have ADHD?

The researchers wanted to figure out how common ADHD is among children of parents both with and without ADHD. To do this, they first analyzed 65 studies with about 2.9 million participants, focusing on children whose parents did not have ADHD. They found that around 3% of these children had ADHD.

Next, they analyzed five studies with over 44,000 cases where the parents did have ADHD. In this group, they found that 32% of the children also had ADHD, meaning about one in three. This is a significant difference—children of parents with ADHD are about ten times more likely to have the condition than children whose parents who do not have ADHD.

How Does This Compare to Other Mental Disorders in Parents?

The researchers also wanted to see if other mental health issues in parents, besides ADHD, were linked to ADHD in their children. They analyzed four studies involving 1.5 million participants and found that if a parent had any mental health disorder (like anxiety, depression, or substance use issues), the child’s chances of having ADHD increased by 80%. However, this is far less than the 840% increase seen in children whose parents specifically had ADHD. In other words, ADHD is much more likely to be passed down in families compared to other mental disorders.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research

The study had a lot of strengths, mainly due to the large number of participants involved, which helps make the findings more reliable. However, there were also some limitations:

  • The researchers did not look into "publication bias," which means they didn’t check whether only certain types of studies were included (those showing stronger results, for example), which could make the findings seem more extreme.
  • The team reported that differences between the studies were measured, but they didn’t explain clearly how these differences affected the results.
  • Most concerning, the researchers admitted that 96% of the studies they included had a "high risk of bias," meaning that many of the studies might not have been entirely reliable.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the research team concluded that their analysis provides strong evidence that children of parents with ADHD or other serious mental health disorders are at a higher risk of developing mental disorders themselves. While more research is needed to fill in the gaps, the findings suggest that it would be wise to carefully monitor the mental health of children whose parents have these conditions to provide support and early intervention if needed

Rudolf Uher, Barbara Pavlova, Joaquim Radua, Umberto Provenzani, Sara Najafi, Lydia Fortea, Maria Ortuño, Anna Nazarova, Nader Perroud, Lena Palaniyappan, Katharina Domschke, Samuele Cortese, Paul D Arnold, Jehannine C Austin, Michael M Vanyukov, Myrna M Weissman, Allan H Young, Manon H J Hillegers, Andrea Danese, Merete Nordentoft, Robin M Murray, and Paolo Fusar-Poli, “Transdiagnostic risk of mental disorders in offspring of affected parents: a meta-analysis of family high-risk and registry studies,” World Psychiatry (2023) 22(3): 433-448, https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21147.

Related posts

No items found.

Meta-analysis Finds Assisted Reproductive Techniques Associated with Offspring ADHD

Meta-analysis Finds Assisted Reproductive Techniques Associated with Offspring ADHD 

Background:

Recent progress in reproductive medicine has increased the number of children conceived via assisted reproductive techniques (ART). These include: 

  • In vitro fertilization (IVF), in which eggs are retrieved from the ovaries and fertilized with sperm in a laboratory; embryos are then transferred into the uterus.  
  • Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where a single sperm is injected directly into an egg. 
  • Intrauterine insemination (IUI), in which sperm is placed directly into the uterus around the time of ovulation. This is often combined with ovulation-inducing (OI) medications. 

Although ART helps with infertility, there are concerns about its long-term effects on offspring, especially regarding neurodevelopment. Factors such as hormonal treatments, gamete manipulation, altered embryonic environments, as well as parental age and infertility, may influence brain development and raise the risk of neurodevelopmental and mental health disorders. 

With previous studies finding conflicting results on a possible association between ART and increased risk of mental health disorders, an Indian research team has just published a new meta-analysis exploring this topic. 

The Study:

Studies were eligible if they were observational (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional), reported confounder-adjusted effect sizes for ADHD, and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. 

A meta-analysis of eight studies encompassing nearly twelve million individuals indicated a 7% higher prevalence of ADHD in offspring conceived via IVF/ICSI compared to those conceived naturally. The heterogeneity among studies was minimal, and no evidence of publication bias was observed. 

The study’s 95% confidence interval ranged from 4% to 10%. Further analysis of five studies comprising almost nine million participants that distinguished outcomes by sex revealed that the increase in ADHD risk among female offspring was not statistically significant. In contrast, the elevated risk in male offspring persisted, though it was marginally significant, with the lower bound of the confidence limit at only 1%. 

Results:

A meta-analysis of three studies (1.4 million participants) found a 13% higher rate of ADHD in children conceived via ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI) compared to natural conception. The effect size, though doubled, remains small. Minimal heterogeneity and no publication bias were observed. 

The team concluded, “The review found a small but statistically significant moderate certainty evidence of an increased risk of ADHD in those conceived through ART, compared to spontaneous conception. The magnitude of observed risk is small and is reassuring for parents and clinicians.” 

Our Take-Away:

Overall, the meta-analysis points to a small, but measurable increase in ADHD diagnoses among children conceived through ART, but the effect sizes are modest and supported by moderate-certainty evidence. And we must always keep in mind that the researchers who wrote the original articles could not correct for all possible confounds.  These findings suggest that while reproductive technologies may introduce slight variation in neurodevelopmental outcomes, the effects are small and uncertain. For families and clinicians, the results are generally reassuring: ART remains a safe and effective avenue to parenthood, and the results of this study should not be viewed as a prohibitive concern. Thoughtful developmental monitoring and open, evidence-based counseling can help ensure that ART-conceived children receive support that caters to their individual needs.

 

December 12, 2025

Taiwan Nationwide Population Study Concludes Dopaminergic ADHD Medications Reduce Risk of Myopia

The Background:

Myopia is a growing global health concern linked to conditions like macular degeneration, glaucoma, and retinal detachment. Its prevalence has surged in recent decades; by 2050, an estimated 5 billion people will have myopia. The increase is especially marked in Asia – a survey in Taiwan reports that 84% of students aged 15 to 18 are myopic, with 24% severely affected. 

Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the retina, involved in eye development, visual signaling, and refractive changes. The dopamine hypothesis, suggesting that retinal dopamine release helps prevent myopia, has emerged as a leading theory of myopia control. 

Most studies show ADHD is highly heritable, often involving dopamine system genes. ADHD is strongly associated with dopaminergic abnormalities, especially in dopamine transporter function and release dynamics. 

Medications for ADHD, like methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, help regulate dopamine to reduce symptoms.  

The Study:

Given dopamine’s critical involvement in both ADHD and myopia, a Taiwanese research team hypothesized that medications for ADHD that influence dopaminergic pathways may have a significant effect on myopia risk.  

To evaluate this hypothesis, the team conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) program, which covers 99% of the nation’s 23 million residents and provides access to comprehensive eye care and screenings. Taiwan requires visual acuity screenings beginning at age four, with annual examinations for school-aged children to promote the early detection of visual anomalies such as myopia.  

Furthermore, ADHD medication and diagnosis are tracked through compulsory diagnostic codes. This permits an accurate assessment of the effects of dopaminergic medications on myopia risk. 

Propensity score allocation using a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to reduce bias from confounding influences, pairing cohorts based on similar scores. 

The Results: 

Comparing 133,945 individuals with ADHD with an equal number without ADHD, untreated ADHD was associated with a 22% greater risk of myopia.  

However, after adjusting for covariates (gender, age, insured premium, comorbidities, location, and urbanization level), the ADHD cohort receiving medication treatment showed a 39% decreased risk of myopia relative to the untreated ADHD cohort. 

Narrowing this further to the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications reduced the risk of myopia by more than half (52%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.  

Treatment with two dopaminergic medications reduced the risk by well over two-thirds (72%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort. 

There were no significant differences between methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine. Each reduced risk by about 50%. 

The team did not directly compare the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications with the non-ADHD cohort. But if there were 122 cases of myopia in the ADHD cohort for every 100 cases in the non-ADHD cohort, and dopaminergic medications halved the cases in the ADHD cohort to about 60, that would represent a roughly 40% reduction in myopia risk relative to the non-ADHD cohort. 

The team concluded, “our research indicates that pharmacologically treated ADHD children have a reduced risk of myopia. Conversely, untreated ADHD children are at a heightened risk relative to those without ADHD. Moreover, the cumulative effects of ADHD medications were found to notably decrease myopia incidence, emphasizing the protective influence of dopaminergic modulation in these interventions.” 

The Take-Away:

Children with untreated ADHD are more likely to develop myopia, but those receiving dopaminergic medications had a substantially lower risk. The findings suggest that ADHD medications may help protect against myopia by boosting dopamine signaling. More research is needed before firmly drawing this conclusion, but this research could open the door to new approaches for preventing myopia in at-risk children.

December 8, 2025

Two New Meta-analyses Point to Benefits of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Background: 

ADHD treatment includes medication, behavioral therapy, dietary changes, and special education. Stimulants are usually the first choice but may cause side effects like appetite loss and stomach discomfort, leading some to stop using them. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective but not always sufficient on its own. Research is increasingly exploring non-drug options, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which may boost medication effectiveness and improve results. 

What is tDCS?

tDCS delivers a weak electric current (1.0–2.0 mA) via scalp electrodes to modulate brain activity, with current flowing from anode to cathode. Anodal stimulation increases neuronal activity, while cathodal stimulation generally inhibits it, though effects vary by region and neural circuitry. The impact of tDCS depends on factors such as current intensity, duration, and electrode shape. It targets cortical areas, often stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for ADHD due to its role in cognitive control. Stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to improve response inhibition, making it another target for ADHD therapy. 

There is an ongoing debate about how effective tDCS is for individuals with ADHD. One study found that applying tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can help reduce impulsivity symptoms in ADHD, whereas another study reported that several sessions of anodic tDCS did not lead to improvements in ADHD symptoms or cognitive abilities.  

New Research:

Two recent meta-analyses have searched for a resolution to these conflicting findings. Both included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using either sham stimulation or a waitlist for controls. 

Each team included seven studies in their respective meta-analyses, three of which appeared in both. 

Both Wang et al. (three RCTs totaling 97 participants) and Wen et al. (three RCTs combining 121 participants) reported very large effect size reductions in inattention symptoms from tDCS versus controls. There was only one RCT overlap between them. Wang et al. had moderate to high  variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, whereas Wen et al. had virtually none. There was no indication of publication bias. 

Whereas Wen et al.’s same three RCTs found no significant reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, Wang et al. combined five RCTs with 221 total participants and reported a medium effect size reduction in impulsivity symptoms. This time, there was an overlap of two RCTs between the studies. Wen et al. had no heterogeneity, while Wang et al. had moderate heterogeneity. Neither showed signs of publication bias.  

Turning to performance-based tasks, Wang et al. reported a medium effect size improvement in attentional performance from tDCS over controls (three RCTs totaling 136 participants), but no improvement in inhibitory control (five RCTs combining 234 persons). 

Wang et al. found no significant difference in adverse events (four RCTs combining 161 participants) between tDCS and controls, with no heterogeneity. Wen et al. found no significant difference in dropout rates (4 RCTs totaling 143 individuals), again with no heterogeneity.  

Wang et al. concluded, “tDCS may improve impulsive symptoms and inattentive symptoms among ADHD patients without increasing adverse effects, which is critical for clinical practice, especially when considering noninvasive brain stimulation, where patient safety is a key concern.” 

Wen et al. further concluded, “Our study supported the use of tDCS for improving the self-reported symptoms of inattention and objective attentional performance in adults diagnosed with ADHD. However, the limited number of available trials hindered a robust investigation into the parameters required for establishing a standard protocol, such as the optimal location of electrode placement and treatment frequency in this setting. Further large-scale double-blind sham-controlled clinical trials that include assessments of self-reported symptoms and performance-based tasks both immediately after interventions and during follow-up periods, as well as comparisons of the efficacy of tDCS targeting different brain locations, are warranted to address these issues.” 

The Take-Away: 

Previous studies have shown mixed results on the benefits of this therapy on ADHD. These new findings suggest that tDCS may hold some real promise for adults with ADHD. While the technique didn’t meaningfully shift hyperactivity or impulsivity, it was well-tolerated and showed benefit, especially in self-reported symptoms. However, with only a handful of trials to draw from, it would be a mistake to suggest tDCS as a standard treatment protocol. Larger, well-designed studies are the next essential step to clarify where, how, and how often tDCS works best.