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 24, 2025
Background:
Despite recommendations for combined pharmacological and behavioral treatment in childhood ADHD, caregivers may avoid these options due to concerns about side effects or the stigma that still surrounds stimulant medications. Alternatives like psychosocial interventions and environmental changes are limited by questionable effectiveness for many patients. Increasingly, patients and caregivers are seeking other therapies, such as neuromodulation – particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
tDCS seeks to enhance neurocognitive function by modulating cognitive control circuits with low-intensity scalp currents. There is also evidence that tDCS can induce neuroplasticity. However, results for ADHD symptom improvement in children and adolescents are inconsistent.
The Method:
To examine the evidence more rigorously, a Taiwanese research team conducted a systematic search focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested tDCS in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They included only studies that used sham-tDCS as a control condition – an essential design feature that prevents participants from knowing whether they received the active treatment, thereby controlling for placebo effects.
The Results:
Meta-analysis of five studies combining 141 participants found no improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. That held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex. There was no sign of publication bias, nor of variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the RCTs.
Meta-analysis of six studies totaling 171 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms, hyperactivity symptoms, or impulsivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. Again, this held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, and there was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Most of the RCTs also performed follow-ups roughly a month after treatment, on the theory that induced neuroplasticity could lead to later improvements.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs combining 118 participants found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. This held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 148 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. AS before, this was true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
The only positive results came from meta-analysis of the same five studies, which reported a medium effect size improvement in impulsivity symptoms at follow-up. Closer examination showed no improvement from stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex, but a large effect size improvement from stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex.
Interpretation:
It is important to note that the one positive result was from three RCTs combining only 90 children and adolescents, a small sample size. Moreover, when only one of sixteen combinations yields a positive outcome, that begins to look like p-hacking for a positive result.
In research, scientists use something called a “p-value” to determine if their findings are real or just due to chance. A p-value below 0.05 (or 5%) is considered “statistically significant,” meaning there's less than a 5% chance the result happened by pure luck.
When testing twenty outcomes by this standard, one would expect one to test positive by chance even if there is no underlying association. In this case, one in 16 comes awfully close to that.
To be sure, the research team straightforwardly reported all sixteen outcomes, but offered an arguably over-positive spin in their conclusion: “Our study only showed tDCS-associated impulsivity improvement in children/adolescents with ADHD during follow-ups and anode placement on the left PFC. ... our findings based on a limited number of available trials warrant further verification from large-scale clinical investigations.”
Chun-Bin Tunga, Shun-Chin Liang, Cheuk-Kwan Sun, Yu-Shian Cheng, and Kuo-Chuan Hung, “Behavioral outcomes after tDCS treatment during immediate post-intervention and follow-up periods in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized sham-controlled trials,” Journal of Psychiatric Research 191 (2025) 8-14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.09.008.
Centanafadine, which is currently under investigation as a treatment for ADHD, will be the first triple reuptake inhibitor for the disorder if it is approved by the FDA. It improves norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin levels. This new medication is not a stimulant, but due to the dopamine component, it has a stimulant-like effect in patients. In adults, two phase 3 trials and a year-long extension have shown sustained benefits and a tolerable safety profile, laying the groundwork for pediatric research.
Based on this study, improvement was already noticeable after the first week and held steady through week 6. The lower dose (164.4 mg) didn’t separate from placebo, reminding us that getting the dose right will be critical. The effect size was smaller than what is seen for stimulants but 50% of patients had excellent outcomes as indicated by reductions in the ADHD-RS of 50% or more.
Side effect patterns look familiar to anyone who prescribes ADHD medications; loss of appetite, nausea and headaches topped the list. About half of teens on the higher dose reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with a quarter of those on placebo. Severe reactions were rare but did include isolated liver enzyme spikes, rash, and a few reports of aggression or somnolence. For everyday practice, that translates to routine growth checks, a look at baseline liver function, and clear guidance to families about reporting rashes or mood changes promptly.
The researchers noted that the study had certain limitations, including limited generalizability to adolescents beyond North America, the exclusion of teacher ratings on the ADHD-RS-5 scale and the study’s short duration. They added that future studies should explore long-term treatment outcomes and efficacy compared with other ADHD treatments, as well as its effect on treating ADHD with comorbid conditions.
First, speed. Centanafadine separated from placebo within a week. In this regard, it might be closer to stimulants than to the multi-week ramp-up we expect from current non-stimulants. Second, it offers another option when stimulants are contraindicated or poorly tolerated, or when they raise diversion concerns. Its mechanism also makes it intriguing for patients who need both norepinephrine and dopamine coverage but prefer to avoid schedule II drugs. Because it also improves serotonergic transmission, it may be useful for some of ADHD’s comorbidities (see our new article for evidence about serotonin’s role in these disorders).
Keep in mind that centanafadine for ADHD is still investigational, so participation in clinical trials remains the only access route.
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 ..."
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.
Background:
Traditional measures of obesity, like body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference, have been linked to ADHD risk — but they aren’t great at capturing where fat is actually stored in the body. A newer index called relative fat mass (RFM), which combines height and waist circumference, does a better job of estimating overall body fat and predicting metabolic risks like heart disease and metabolic syndrome. Because those conditions share some underlying biological mechanisms with ADHD, researchers wondered whether RFM might also help explain the relationship between obesity and ADHD — particularly in children.
That question is complicated by the fact that ADHD doesn't look the same in boys and girls. Boys tend to display more hyperactive and impulsive behavior, making their ADHD easier to spot. Girls more often show inattention, which is quieter and frequently goes undiagnosed.
The Study:
A new study set out to test whether RFM is associated with ADHD in children, and whether that association differs between sexes. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected between 1999 and 2004, the researchers narrowed a large initial pool of over 31,000 participants down to 5,089 children and adolescents aged 6 to 14 who had complete data on height, waist circumference, ADHD screening, and other relevant variables.
After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, Poverty-Income Ratio, maternal age at delivery, maternal smoking during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, and birth weight, the results revealed a striking split along sex lines.
In boys, higher RFM was associated with lower odds of ADHD. Compared to boys in the lowest fat-mass quartile, those in the second quartile had about 10% lower odds of ADHD, rising to over 30% lower in the third quartile and nearly 40% lower in the highest. In girls, the pattern reversed entirely. While girls in the second quartile showed similar odds to those with the lowest RFM, girls in the third and fourth quartiles had 60% to 70% greater odds of ADHD.
Conclusion & Why This Matters:
In recent years, the relationship between obesity and ADHD has become an increasingly important focus in pediatric neurodevelopmental research. Studies have reported higher rates of ADHD symptoms among children and adolescents with obesity compared with their non-obese peers, and difficulties with peer relationships have also been linked to increased obesity risk (Sönmez et al., 2019). From a neurobiological standpoint, both conditions may involve shared underlying mechanisms, particularly dysfunction in dopaminergic pathways.
The authors concluded that higher body fat levels appear to lower ADHD risk in boys while raising it in girls. This finding highlights why sex-specific analysis matters in ADHD research. The underlying biological reasons for this divergence, however, remain an open question and open the door for future research.
While ADHD is a developmental disorder, shaped by biology and genetics, growing evidence shows that it is also influenced by the social and environmental conditions in which children grow up. Research on the social determinants of health emphasizes that development is shaped not only by biology but also by factors such as family income, access to healthcare, neighborhood safety, and material stability. These factors can affect both how developmental challenges appear and whether they are recognized and diagnosed.
Children facing socioeconomic disadvantage consistently show higher risks of developmental and behavioral difficulties. Chronic stress linked to poverty – including financial strain, food insecurity, and limited access to resources – has been associated with problems in attention, emotional regulation, and daily functioning. Children from lower-income families also tend to experience more severe ADHD symptoms and face greater barriers to ongoing care.
Neighborhood conditions matter as well. Unsafe environments can limit opportunities for play and social interaction while increasing caregiver stress, all of which may influence children’s behavior and development. Material hardships, such as food insecurity, can further undermine stability at home.
The Study:
The study analyzed six years of data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (2018–2023), covering more than 205,000 U.S. children aged 3 to 17. After accounting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, family structure, survey year, and other social factors, the researchers found a strong income gradient in ADHD prevalence. Compared with children in households earning at least four times the federal poverty level, those in households earning two to four times that level had 28 percent higher odds of ADHD. Odds rose to 70 percent higher in households earning one to two times the poverty level, and more than doubled among children living below the poverty line.
Parental education showed a similar pattern. Compared with children whose parents had completed college, ADHD odds were 20 percent higher among those whose parents had some college education, 40 percent higher among those whose parents had only a high school education, and 80 percent higher among those whose parents had not finished high school.
Children living in unsafe neighborhoods had nearly twice the odds of ADHD compared with those in safe neighborhoods, and food insecurity was also linked to almost double the odds.
By contrast, race and ethnicity alone were associated with much smaller differences. Compared with non-Hispanic White children, children in non-Hispanic Black households had an 18 percent higher likelihood of ADHD, while children in Hispanic households had a 25 percent lower likelihood. No substantial differences were observed for children from other or multiracial households.
Conclusion and Takeaway:
The study team concluded, “Children living in lower-income households, experiencing food insecurity, and residing in unsafe neighborhoods consistently showed higher prevalence and higher adjusted odds of both conditions. … Overall, these findings reinforce the need to view neurodevelopmental disorders within a broader social and structural framework.”
It should be noted that this study is not aiming to name social factors as direct causes of ADHD. Rather, it points to socioeconomic disparities as contributing to the way ADHD develops and how it is treated. This type of research, as well as acknowledging barriers to care, is crucial for clinicians, counselors, teachers, etc., to consider when working with youth with ADHD.
Counting umbilical cord vessels is standard in prenatal ultrasounds and confirmed at birth. Single umbilical artery (SUA) occurs in about 1 in 200 cases, with roughly 10% associated with anomalies, including central nervous system defects. Isolated SUA (iSUA) means one artery is missing without other structural issues.
Research on SUA, especially isolated iSUA, and childhood neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) is limited and inconclusive. iSUA is linked to preterm birth and small-for-gestational age (SGA), both of which are NDD risk factors.
This Norwegian nationwide population study aimed to assess NDD risk in children with iSUA at birth, the influence of sex, and how preterm birth and SGA mediate this relationship.
The nation’s universal single-payer health insurance and comprehensive population registries made it possible to analyze all 858,397 single births occurring from 1999 to 2013, with follow-up continuing through 2019. Among these cases, 3,532 involved iSUA.
After adjusting for confounders such as parental age, education, and maternal health factors, no overall link was found between iSUA and later ADHD diagnosis. However, females with iSUA had about a 40% higher risk of subsequent ADHD compared to those without iSUA, even after adjustment.
The authors concluded, “The present study indicates that iSUA is weakly associated with ID [intellectual disability] and ADHD, and these associations are influenced by sex. This association is mediated negligibly through preterm birth and SGA. The associations were not clinically significant, and the absence of associations of iSUA with other NDD is reassuring. This finding can be useful in the counseling of expectant parents of fetuses diagnosed with iSUA.”
_logo%201.svg)
