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 31, 2025
Background:
Pharmacotherapies, such as methylphenidate, are highly effective for short-term ADHD management, but issues remain with medication tolerability and adherence. Some patients experience unwanted side effects from stimulant medications, leaving them searching for alternative ADHD treatments. Alternative treatments such as cognitive training, behavioral therapies, psychological interventions, neurofeedback, and dietary changes have, so far, shown limited success. Thus, there is a critical need for non-pharmacological options that boost neurocognitive performance and address core ADHD symptoms.
First— What Are NIBS (Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation) Techniques?
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are generating growing attention within the scientific community.
NIBS techniques are methods that use external stimulation, such as magnets or electrical currents, to affect brain activity without any invasive procedures. In transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), for example, small electrodes are placed on the scalp of the patient, and a weak electrical current is administered.
The theory behind these techniques is that when a direct current is applied between two or more electrodes placed on specific areas of the head, it makes certain neurons more or less likely to fire. This technique has been successfully used to treat conditions like depression and anxiety, and to aid recovery from stroke or brain injury.
The Study:
Previous meta-analyses have produced conflicting indications of efficacy. A Chinese research team consisting of sports and rehabilitative medicine professionals has just published a network meta-analysis to explore this further, through direct comparison of five critical outcome domains: inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity.
To be included, randomized controlled trials needed to have participants diagnosed with ADHD, use sham control groups, and assess ADHD symptoms and executive functions – such as inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity – using standardized tests.
A total of thirty-seven studies encompassing 1,615 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria. It is worth noting, however, that the authors did not specify the number of randomized controlled trials nor the number of participants included in each arm of the network meta-analysis.
Furthermore, the team stated, “We checked for potential small study effects and publication bias by conducting comparison-adjusted funnel plots,” but did not share their findings. They also did not provide information on outcome variation (heterogeneity) among the RCTs.
Results:
Ultimately, none of the interventions produced significant improvements in ADHD symptoms, whether in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms. Likewise, none of the interventions produced significant improvements in inhibitory control. Some tDCS interventions enhanced working memory and cognitive flexibility, but details about trial numbers and participants were missing. The team concluded, “none of the NIBS interventions significantly improved inhibitory control compared to sham controls. … In terms of working memory, anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC plus cathodal tDCS over the right DLPFC … and anodal tDCS over the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) plus cathodal tDCS over the right supraorbital area ... were associated with significant improvements compared to sham stimulation. For cognitive flexibility, only anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC plus cathodal tDCS over the right supraorbital area demonstrated a statistically significant benefit relative to sham. ... Compared to the sham controls, none of the NIBS interventions significantly improved inattention. ... Compared to the sham controls, none of the NIBS interventions significantly improved hyperactivity and impulsivity.”
How Should We Interpret These Results?
In a word, skeptically.
If one were to read just the study’s abstract, which states, “The dual-tDCS and a-tDCS may be considered among the preferred NIBS interventions for improving cognitive function in ADHD”, it might seem that the takeaway from this study is that this combination of brain stimulation techniques might be a viable treatment option for those with ADHD. Upon closer inspection, however, the results do not suggest that any of these methods significantly improve ADHD symptoms. Additionally, this study suffers from quite a few methodological flaws, so any results should be viewed critically.
Xinwen Liang, Xiaoyu Wei, Yan Huang, Jing Li, Huan Feng, Jingyuan Fan, Longguo Zhang,
Zhijiang Wang, Xin Zhao, Weimin Pan, and Rui Liu, “Comparative efficacy of non-invasive
brain stimulation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and network
meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Neurology (2025), https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2025.1650154
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 ..."
It sounds like science fiction, but scientists have been testing computerized methods to train the brains of ADHD people to reduce both ADHD symptoms and cognitive deficits such as difficulties with memory or attention.
Two main approaches have been used: cognitive training and neurofeedback. Cognitive training methods ask patients to practice tasks aimed at teaching specific skills, such as retaining information in memory or inhibiting impulsive responses.
Currently, results from ADHD brain studies suggest that the ADHD brain is not very different from the non-ADHD brain, but that ADHD leads to small differences in the structure, organization, and functioning of the brain. The idea behind cognitive training is that the brain can be reorganized to accomplish tasks through a structured learning process. Cognitive retraining helps people who have suffered brain damage, so it was logical to think it might help the types of brain differences seen in ADHD people. Several software packages have been created to deliver cognitive training sessions to ADHD people.
Neurofeedback was applied to ADHD after it had been observed, in many studies, that people with ADHD have unusual brain waves as measured by the electroencephalogram (EEG). We believe that these unusual brain waves are caused by the different ways that the ADHD brain processes information. Because these differences lead to problems with memory, attention, inhibiting responses, and other areas of cognition and behavior, it was believed that normalizing the brain waves might reduce ADHD symptoms.
In a neurofeedback session, patients sit with a computer that reads their brain waves via wires connected to their heads. The patient is asked to do a task on the computer that is known to produce a specific type of brain wave. The computer gives feedback via sound or a visual on the computer screen that tells the patient how 'normal' their brainwaves are. By modifying their behavior, patients learn to change their brain waves. The method is called neurofeedback because it gives patients direct feedback about how their brains are processing information.
Both cognitive training and neurofeedback have been extensively studied. If you've been reading my blogs about ADHD, you know that I play by the rules of evidence-based medicine. My view is that the only way to be sure that a treatment works is to see what researchers have published in scientific journals. The highest level of evidence is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. This ensures that many rigorous studies have been conducted and summarized with a sophisticated mathematical method.
Although both cognitive training and neurofeedback are rational methods based on good science, meta-analyses suggest that they do not help reduce ADHD symptoms. They may be helpful for specific problems, such as problems with memory, but more work is needed to be certain if that is true. The future may bring better news about these methods if they are modified and become more effective. You can learn more about non-pharmacologic treatment for ADHD from a book I recently edited: Faraone, S. V. &Antshel, K. M. (2014). ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 23, xiii-xiv.
Noting that "despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS [repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation]and tDCS [transcranial direct current stimulation] are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD," and that a recent meta-analysis of ten tDCS studies found small but significant improvements in outcomes, but had several methodological shortcomings and did not include two studies reporting mostly null effects, a team of British neurologists performed a meta-analysis of all twelve sham-controlled, non-open-label, studies found in a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature.
Ten of the twelve randomized-controlled trials used anodal stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while the other two used anodal stimulation of the right inferior frontal cortex.
The trials explored several measures of cognition. The research team carried out a meta-analysis of all twelve trials, with a total of 232 participants, and found no significant improvement in attention scores from CDC, relative to sham stimulation. A second meta-analysis, of eleven trials with a total of 220 participants, assessed the efficacy of tDCS on improving inhibition scores, and again found no significant effect. A third meta-analysis, encompassing eight trials with a total of 124 participants, evaluated the efficacy of tDCS on improving processing speed scores, once again finding no significant effect.
The latter two meta-analyses approached the border of significance, prompting the authors to speculate that larger sample sizes could bring the results just over the threshold of significance. Even so, effect sizes would be small.
It is also possible that the trials focused on regions of the brain suboptimal for this objective, and thus the authors "cannot rule out the possibility that stimulation of other prefrontal regions (such as the right hemispheric inferior frontal cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or parietal regions), multiple session tDCS or tDCS in combination with cognitive training could improve clinically or cognitive functions in ADHD."
As to concerns about safety, on the other hand, "stimulation was well-tolerated overall."
The authors concluded that based on current evidence, tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex cannot yet be recommended as an alternative Neurotherapy for ADHD.
Girls are diagnosed with ADHD at less than half the rate of boys, but this gap closes significantly by adulthood. ADHD also looks different in females than in males, with distinct patterns in symptoms, development, functional impairment, economic impact, and long-term outcomes. Despite this, sex differences in how ADHD relates to physical health have been poorly studied.
Prior research has established that both children and adults with ADHD face elevated risk for a range of physical health conditions. But that work has been hampered by small samples, retrospective designs, and limited population coverage.
The Study:
Denmark's single-payer national health system makes it possible to conduct truly population-wide research. This study drew on Danish national registers to follow more than 825,000 individuals, born between 1984 and 1995, from birth through adolescence and into young adulthood, tracking them across 13 categories of physical disease. Only individuals free of a relevant physical diagnosis at birth were included, and ADHD diagnosis was treated as something that could be acquired over time rather than a fixed characteristic.
The Results:
Across both sexes, people diagnosed with ADHD consistently showed higher disease risk than the general population, with cancer being the one notable exception. The absence of a meaningful cancer signal is expected, given that cancer predominantly affects older age groups than those captured in this study.
For most other disease categories (including infectious, endocrine, metabolic, respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, and genitourinary diseases), elevated risk emerged in early adolescence. For the remaining categories, elevated risk was present at all ages studied.
The magnitude of these risks was often substantial:
By early adulthood, individuals with ADHD showed at least 20% greater risk across every disease category except cancer, regardless of sex.
Sex Differences Shift With Age
One of the study's more nuanced findings concerns how sex interacts with ADHD diagnosis over time. In the general population, females tend to have higher physical disease risk from the teenage years onward, while males show higher risk in early childhood. ADHD diagnosis disrupted these patterns unevenly, amplifying risk in some groups and age windows more than others.
Perhaps most notably, the transition into young adulthood appeared to reduce the ADHD-associated gap between the sexes for endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (from a ninefold female-to-male disparity down to roughly 4.5-fold). The authors suggest this may reflect ADHD's influence on sex hormone activity during this developmental period.
Takeaway
This large, population-representative study confirms that an ADHD diagnosis is associated with meaningfully elevated risk across nearly all categories of physical disease, and that this relationship is neither uniform across sexes nor static across the lifespan. The findings underscore the need for sex-sensitive, developmentally informed approaches to the physical healthcare of people with ADHD.
Antidepressants are the primary drug treatment for depressive disorders, which affect 15–20% of pregnant women. They are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, and their use has increased in recent decades. Understanding their reproductive safety is critical to support informed, evidence-based prescribing during pregnancy.
A new meta-analysis sheds important light on one of the most debated concerns: whether children born to mothers who took antidepressants during pregnancy face a higher risk of ADHD.
The Study:
Pooling 14 studies covering more than 14 million participants, the analysis found that prenatal antidepressant exposure was associated with a 35% higher rate of ADHD in offspring compared to no exposure. A separate look at SSRIs (the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, including Prozac and Zoloft) across 11 studies and over four million pregnancies found an even higher apparent risk (44%) after correcting for publication bias. On the surface, these are striking numbers.
Both associations came with an important caveat: enormous variation between individual studies, a statistical red flag suggesting the results may not reflect a true underlying effect. More tellingly, the apparent risk evaporated entirely when researchers applied a more rigorous method — comparing siblings within the same family, where one child was exposed to antidepressants in the womb, and another was not.
This sibling-comparison design is particularly powerful because it automatically controls for factors that run in families: shared genes, household environment, parenting, and socioeconomic conditions. When those influences are held constant, the link between antidepressant exposure and ADHD disappears. The same pattern held for SSRIs specifically.
Two other antidepressant classes, SNRIs (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and tricyclics, showed no significant association in any analysis.
“Confounding by Indication”:
The probable driver of the initial association is what researchers call confounding by indication. The very condition being treated (depression) is itself a risk factor for ADHD in offspring, independently of any medication. Mothers with more severe depression are also more likely to be prescribed antidepressants, meaning the drug and the underlying illness are difficult to disentangle in standard analyses. Sibling studies cut through this problem cleanly.
The Take-Away:
The authors concluded that the association between antidepressants and ADHD risk was non-significant across all analyses designed to account for these confounding factors. This doesn’t mean antidepressants are without any reproductive considerations, but it does suggest that ADHD risk, at least, is driven by heritable and family-level factors rather than medication exposure itself.
For clinicians and patients weighing the risks of treating or not treating depression during pregnancy, this distinction matters considerably.
Executive functions are the mental processes that allow us to plan, adapt, and follow through. This encompasses working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, goal-directed planning, and problem-solving. In people with ADHD, weaknesses in these areas compound the disorder's core symptoms, making it substantially harder to manage complex, real-world demands.
Background:
Medication remains the frontline clinical response. Stimulant medications can meaningfully reduce both executive function deficits and ADHD symptoms, and are often combined with behavioral or psychological therapies for better overall outcomes.
Medication, however, is not entirely without risk of side effects. These risks have spurred interest in new, non-pharmacological alternatives that target the same neural pathways. One of these new therapies is Computerized Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CCRT). This therapy uses digital programs delivered via computer, tablet, or smartphone that train attention, memory, and inhibitory control through structured cognitive exercises. A key feature of many CCRT platforms is adaptive difficulty: tasks adjust in real time to match the child’s current ability, keeping training both challenging and engaging.
The Study:
Despite this promise, the evidence base in younger populations has been limited. This meta-analysis pooled results from randomized controlled trials enrolling participants under 18 who either carried an ADHD diagnosis or scored above the threshold on a validated rating scale. Comparators included no treatment (waitlist), placebo (pharmacological or psychological), or treatment as usual. The primary outcomes (overall executive function and clinical symptom severity) were assessed via questionnaires and neuropsychological testing. Studies including participants with comorbid autism, tic disorders, epilepsy, or other psychiatric conditions were excluded.
The findings were informative, but overall results were mixed. CCRT produced a small but statistically meaningful reduction in inattention symptoms across 13 studies (885 participants), with consistent results across individual trials and no evidence of publication bias. However, it had no detectable effect on hyperactivity and impulsivity (12 studies, 833 participants) or on total ADHD symptom burden (10 studies, 731 participants).
The picture was more encouraging for executive function. Nine studies (500 participants) showed small overall improvements, with specific gains in working memory (454 participants), inhibitory control (428 participants), and planning (6 studies, 335 participants). Emotional control showed no significant change (5 studies, 265 participants), nor did cognitive flexibility (4 studies, 189 participants).
The Take-Away:
Taken together, these results are modest rather than transformative, but context matters. CCRT is low-cost, digitally scalable, and carries negligible side effects. For a population where medication often comes with a significant burden of adverse reactions, even small, reliable improvements in executive function represent a meaningful clinical option.
The evidence positions CCRT not as a replacement for established treatments, but as a practical and well-tolerated addition to the therapeutic toolkit for children and adolescents with ADHD.
_logo%201.svg)
