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.
April 27, 2021
ADHD is a serious disorder that requires treatment to prevent many adverse outcomes. But, because the diagnosis of ADHD is based on how the patient responds to questions, people can pretend that they have ADHD when they do not. If you Google "fake ADHD" you'll get many pages of links, including a Psychology Today article on the topic and bloggers describing how they were able to fool doctors into giving them ADHD medications. Is fake ADHD a serious problem? Not really. The Internetseems to be faking an epidemic of fake ADHD.I say that because we have decades of research that show many objective measures of abnormality and impairment in people who say they have ADHD. These include traffic accidents, abnormalities in brain imaging, and molecular genetic differences. Some studies even suggest that ADHD adults downplay their ADHD symptoms. For example, one study diagnosed ADHD in children and then contacted them many years later when they were young adults.When they were interviewed as young adults, their responses to questions about ADHD suggested that they did not have the disorder. But when the same questions about the patient were asked to someone who lived with the patient as a young adult, it was clear that they still had ADHD. So rather than faking ADHD, many ADHD adults do not recognize that they have symptoms of the disorder. That said, we also know from research studies that, when asked to pretend that they have ADHD, adults can fake the disorder. That means that they can learn about the symptoms of the disorder and makeup examples of how they have had them when they have not. The research discussed above suggests that this is not common, but we do know that some people have motives for faking ADHD.For example, some college students seek special accommodations for taking tests; others may want stimulants for abuse, misuse, or diversion. Fortunately, doctors can detect fake ADHD in several ways. If an adult itself-referred for ADHD and asks specifically for stimulant medication, that raises the possibility of fake ADHD and drug-seeking. Because the issue of stimulant misuse has been mostly a concern on college campuses, many doctors treating college students will require independent verification of the patient's ADHD symptoms by speaking with a parent, even over the phone if an in-person visit is not possible. Using ADHD rating scales will not detect fake ADHD, and it is easy to fake poor performance on tests of reading or math ability. Neuropsychological tests can sometimes be used to detect malingering, but require referral to a specialist. Researchers are developing methods to detect faking ADHD symptoms. These have shown some utility in studies of young adults, but are not ready for clinical practice. So, currently, doctors concerned about fake ADHD should look for objective indicators of impairment (e.g., documented traffic accidents; academic performance below expectation) and speak to a parent of the patient to document that impairing symptoms of the disorder were present before the age of twelve. Because the issue of fake ADHD is of most concern on college campuses, it can also be helpful to speak with a teacher who has had frequent contact with the patient. In an era of large lecture halls and broadcast lectures, that may be difficult. And don't be fooled by the Internet. We don't want to deny treatment to ADHD patients out of undocumented reports of an epidemic of fake ADHD.
Harrison, A. G., Edwards, M. J. & Parker, K. C. (2007).Identifying students faking ADHD: Preliminary findings and strategies fordetection. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 22, 577-88.
Sansone, R. A. & Sansone, L. A. (2011). Faking attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder. Innov Clin Neurosci 8, 10-3
Loughan, A., Perna, R., Le, J. & Hertza, J. (2014). C-88Abbreviatingthe Test of Memory Malingering: TOMM Trial 1 in Children with ADHD. Arch ClinNeuropsychol 29, 605-6.
Loughan, A. R. & Perna, R. (2014). Performance andspecificity rates in the Test of Memory Malingering: an investigation intopediatric clinical populations. Appl Neuropsychol Child 3, 26-30.
Quinn, C. A. (2003). Detection of malingering in the assessmentof adult ADHD. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 18, 379-95.
Suhr, J., Hammers, D., Dobbins-Buckland, K., Zimak, E. &Hughes, C. (2008). The relationship of malingering test failure toself-reported symptoms and neuropsychological findings in adults referred forADHD evaluation. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 23, 521-30.
Greve, K. W. & Bianchini, K. J. (2002). Using theWisconsin card sorting test to detect malingering: an analysis of thespecificity of two methods in non malingering normal and patient samples. J ClinExp Neuropsychol 24, 48-54.
Killgore, W. D. & Della Pietra, L. (2000). Using theWMS-III to detect malingering: empirical validation of the rarely missed index(RMI). J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 22, 761-71.
Ord, J. S., Greve, K. W. & Bianchini, K. J. (2008).Using the Wechsler Memory Scale-III to detect malingering in mild traumaticbrain injury. Clin Neuropsychol 22, 689-704.
Wisdom, N. M., Callahan, J. L. & Shaw, T. G.(2010). Diagnostic utility of the structured inventory of malingeredsymptomatology to detect malingering in a forensic sample. Arch ClinNeuropsychol 25, 118-25.
EBI-ADHD:
If you live with ADHD, treat ADHD, or write about ADHD, you’ve probably run into the same problem: there’s a ton of research on treatments, but it’s scattered across hundreds of papers that don’t talk to each other. The EBI-ADHD website fixes that.
EBI-ADHD (Evidence-Based Interventions for ADHD) is a free, interactive platform that pulls together the best available research on how ADHD treatments work and how safe they are. It’s built for clinicians, people with ADHD and their families, and guideline developers who need clear, comparable information rather than a pile of PDFs. EBI-ADHD Database The site is powered by 200+ meta-analyses covering 50,000+ participants and more than 30 different interventions. These include medications, psychological therapies, brain-stimulation approaches, and lifestyle or “complementary” options.
The heart of the site is an interactive dashboard. You can:
The dashboard then shows an evidence matrix: a table where each cell is a specific treatment–outcome–time-point combination. Each cell tells you two things at a glance:
Clicking a cell opens more detail: effect sizes, the underlying meta-analysis, and how the certainty rating was decided.
EBI-ADHD is not just a curated list of papers. It’s built on a formal umbrella review of ADHD interventions, published in The BMJ in 2025. That review re-analyzed 221 meta-analyses using a standardized statistical pipeline and rating system.
The platform was co-created with 100+ clinicians and 100+ people with lived ADHD experience from around 30 countries and follows the broader U-REACH framework for turning complex evidence into accessible digital tools.
Why it Matters
ADHD is one of the most studied conditions in mental health, yet decisions in everyday practice are still often driven by habit, marketing, or selective reading of the literature. EBI-ADHD offers something different: a transparent, continuously updated map of what we actually know about ADHD treatments and how sure we are about it.
In short, it’s a tool to move conversations about ADHD care from “I heard this works” to “Here’s what the best current evidence shows, and let’s decide together what matters most for you.”
The Background:
Meta-analyses have previously suggested a link between maternal thyroid dysfunction and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) in children, though some studies report no significant difference. Overweight and obesity are more common in children and adolescents with NDDs. Hypothyroidism is often associated with obesity, which may result from reduced energy expenditure or disrupted hormone signaling affecting growth and appetite. These hormone-related parameters could potentially serve as biomarkers for NDDs; however, research findings on these indicators vary.
The Study:
A Chinese research group recently released a meta-analysis examining the relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and hormone levels – including thyroid, growth, and appetite hormones – in children and adolescents.
The analysis included peer-reviewed studies that compared hormone levels – such as thyroid hormones (FT3, FT4, TT3, TT4, TSH, TPO-Ab, or TG-Ab), growth hormones (IGF-1 or IGFBP-3), and appetite-related hormones (leptin, ghrelin, or adiponectin) – in children and adolescents with NDDs like ADHD, against matched healthy controls. To be included, NDD cases had to be first-diagnosis and medication-free, or have stopped medication before testing. Hormone measurements needed to come from blood, urine, or cerebrospinal fluid samples, and all studies were required to provide both means and standard deviations for these measurements.
Meta-analysis of nine studies encompassing over 5,700 participants reported a medium effect size increase in free triiodothyronine (FT3) in children and adolescents with ADHD relative to healthy controls. There was no indication of publication bias, but variation between individual study outcomes (heterogeneity) was very high. Further analysis showed FT3 was only significantly elevated in the predominantly inattentive form of ADHD (three studies), again with medium effect size, but not in the hyperactive/impulsive and combined forms.
Meta-analysis of two studies combining more than 4,800 participants found a small effect size increase in thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPO-Ab) in children and adolescents with ADHD relative to healthy controls. In this case, the two studies had consistent results. Because only two studies were involved, there was no way to evaluate publication bias.
The remaining thyroid hormone meta-analyses, involving 6 to 18 studies and over 5,000 participants in each instance, found no significant differences in levels between children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy controls.
Meta-analyses of six studies with 317 participants and two studies with 192 participants found no significant differences in growth hormone levels between children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy controls.
Finally, meta-analyses of nine studies with 333 participants, five studies with 311 participants, and three studies with 143 participants found no significant differences in appetite-related hormone levels between children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy controls.
The Conclusion:
The team concluded that FT3 and TPO-Ab might be useful biomarkers for predicting ADHD in youth. However, since FT3 was only linked to inattentive ADHD, and TPO-Ab’s evidence came from just two studies with small effects, this conclusion may overstate the meta-analysis results.
Our Take-Away:
Overall, this meta-analysis found only limited evidence that hormone differences are linked to ADHD. One thyroid hormone (FT3) was higher in children with ADHD—mainly in the inattentive presentation—but the findings varied widely across studies. Another marker, TPO-Ab, showed a small increase, but this came from only two studies, making the result less certain. For all other thyroid, growth, and appetite-related hormones, the researchers found no meaningful differences between children with ADHD and those without. While FT3 and TPO-Ab may be worth exploring in future research, the current evidence is not strong enough to consider them reliable biomarkers.
Background:
Recent progress in reproductive medicine has increased the number of children conceived via assisted reproductive techniques (ART). These include:
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.
_logo%201.svg)
