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 17, 2025
Executive function impairment is a key feature of ADHD, with its severity linked to the intensity of ADHD symptoms. Executive function involves managing complex cognitive tasks for organized behavior and includes three main areas: inhibitory control (suppressing impulsive actions), working memory (holding information briefly), and cognitive flexibility (switching between different mental tasks). Improving executive functions is a critical objective in the treatment of ADHD.
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are commonly used to treat ADHD, but can cause side effects like reduced appetite, sleep problems, nausea, and headaches. Long-term use may also lead to stunted growth and cardiovascular issues. This encourages the search for non-invasive methods to enhance executive function in children with ADHD.
Neurological techniques like neurofeedback and transcranial stimulation are increasingly used to treat children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurofeedback is the most adopted method; it is noninvasive and aims to improve brain function by providing real-time feedback on brainwave activity so participants can self-regulate targeted brain regions.
The systematic search and meta-analysis examined children and adolescents aged 6–18 with ADHD. It included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, as well as quasi-experimental studies that reported statistical data such as participant numbers, means, and standard deviations. Studies were required to use validated measures of executive function, including neurocognitive tasks or questionnaires. They also had to have control groups.
A meta-analysis of ten studies (539 participants) found a small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control after neurofeedback training, with no publication bias and minimal study heterogeneity*. Long-term treatment (over 21 hours) showed benefits, while short-term treatment did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed.
A meta-analysis of seven studies with 370 children and adolescents found a small-to-medium improvement in working memory after neurofeedback, with no publication bias overall but high heterogeneity. A dose-response effect was observed: treatments over 21 hours showed benefits, while shorter ones did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed.
The study team also looked at sustained effects six months to a year after conclusion of training. Meta-analysis of two studies totaling 131 participants found a sustained small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control, with negligible heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of three studies combining 182 participants found a sustained medium improvement in working memory, with moderate heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
The team concluded, “NFT is an effective intervention for improving executive function in children with ADHD, specifically inhibitory control and working memory. This approach demonstrates a more pronounced impact on working memory when extended beyond 1000 min [sic], with inhibitory control following closely behind. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that NFT may have sustained effects on both working memory and inhibitory control. Given the relatively small number of studies assessing long-term effects and the potential for publication bias, further research is necessary to confirm these effects.”
Moreover, because 1) RCTs are the gold standard, and the meta-analyses combined RCTs with non-RCTs, and 2) data from neurocognitive tasks was combined with data from more subjective and less accurate questionnaires, these meta-analysis results should be interpreted with further caution.
*Heterogeneity refers to the rate of variation between individual study outcomes. High heterogeneity means that there was substantial variation in the results. When a meta-anaylysis has high heterogeneity, it suggests that the studies differ significantly in their populations, methods, interventions, or outcomes, making the combined result much less reliable.
Xiaoke Zhong, Xiaoxia Yuan, Yuanfu Dai, Xinbi Zhang, and Changhao Jiang, “Neurofeedback training for executive function in ADHD children: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Scientific Reports (2025), 15: 28148, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94242-4.
Neurofeedback, also known as EEG (electroencephalogram)biofeedback, is a treatment that seeks to alleviate symptoms of various neurological and mental health disorders, including ADHD. It does this through immediate feedback from a computer program that tracks a client's brainwave activity, then uses sound or visual signals to retrain these brain signals. This in principle enables patients to learn to regulate and improve their brain function and reduce symptoms.
An Iranian study team recently performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature. It identified seventeen randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of neurofeedback treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD that could be aggregated for meta-analysis.
A meta-analysis of twelve RCTs with a combined total of 740 youths looked at parent ratings of changes in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, and separately of changes in inattention symptoms. In both instances, the net pooled effect centered on zero.
A meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a combined total of 787 youths examined teacher ratings. Once again, the pooled change hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms centered on zero. For inattention symptoms, the teacher ratings centered on a tiny improvement, but it did not approach statistical significance. The 95% confidence interval stretched well into negative territory.
There was no sign of publication bias. Between-study heterogeneity, on the other hand, was high, with some small sample size RCTs pointing to reduced symptoms, and other small sample size RCTs pointing to increased symptoms. However, the RCTs with the larger sample sizes clustered close around zero effect size.
The authors concluded,"The results provide preliminary evidence that neurofeedback treatment is not an efficacious clinical method for ADHD."
Noting that “The efficacy of surface electroencephalographic neurofeedback (EEG‐NF) for improving attentional performance assessed by laboratory measures in patients with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains unclear,” a Taiwanese study team systematically searched seven databases, including the U.S. clinical trials database, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through January of 2022.
They identified fourteen RCTs with a combined 718 participants that met criteria for inclusion in meta-analysis. The net outcome was a small-to-medium effect size improvement in attentional performance for participants receiving EEG neurofeedback by contrast with “comparators.”
The comparators varied widely: waitlist, treatment as usual, physical exercise, behavioral therapy, attention skills training, computer-aided attention training, medications, electromyographic biofeedback, sham EEG neurofeedback. This alone brings into question the meta-analysis outcome.
But there were additional methodological shortcomings. There was strong evidence of publication bias. And though the authors promised, “On encountering funnel plot asymmetry, potentially missing studies were imputed by using the Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method,” they never shared the outcome.
Another shortcoming was that only two of the fourteen RCTs blinded the participants, meaning that in twelve RCTs the participants were likely to be aware they were in the EEG neurofeedback group rather than the control group. And that made all the difference. The twelve unblinded RCTs were responsible for all the small-to-medium effect size improvement. There was no sign of improvement in the two blinded RCTs.
The authors tried to give a positive spin to these results, stating “our results supported the use of surface EEG-NF for improving attentional performance through the modulation of basic neurocognitive functioning in patients with ADHD,” while conceding, “However, given the small number of trials and the poor methodological qualities regarding blinding, our findings need to be judiciously interpreted and warrant further investigations for validation.”
A more candid assessment of this meta-analysis would be the one they began with: “The efficacy of surface electroencephalographic neurofeedback (EEG‐NF) for improving attentional performance assessed by laboratory measures in patients with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains unclear.”
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.
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:
Despite these promising results, the study also highlighted several limitations:
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.
What do we mean by expert? In simple terms, an expert possesses in-depth knowledge and specialized training in a particular field. In order to be considered an expert in any field, a person must have both deep knowledge of and competence in their specific area of expertise. Experts have a background that includes education, research, and experience. In the world of mental health and psychology, this typically means formal credentials (a PhD, MD, etc) in addition to years of study, peer-reviewed publications, and/or extensive clinical experience.
Experts are recognized by their peers (and often by the public) as reliable authorities on a specific topic. Experts usually don’t make big claims without evidence; instead, they cite studies and speak cautiously about what the evidence shows.
Tip: Those looking for likes and clicks will often speak in absolutes (e.g., “refined sugar makes your ADHD worse, but the Keto Diet will eliminate ADHD symptoms”) while experts will use language that emphasizes evidence (e.g., “research has proven that there is no ‘ADHD Diet’, but some evidence has suggested that certain individuals with ADHD may benefit from such dietary interventions as limiting food coloring or increasing omega fatty acids.”)
Social media has created an incredible opportunity for those with ADHD to gain access to invaluable resources, including the creation of communities by and for those with ADHD. Many people with ADHD report feeling empowered and less alone by connecting with others online. These online social platforms provide a space for those with ADHD to share their own perspectives and their lived experience with the disorder. Both inside and outside of mental health-related communities, social media is a powerful tool for sharing information, reducing stigma, and helping people find community. When someone posts about their own ADHD challenges or tips, it can reassure others that they’re not the only ones facing these issues. This kind of peer support is valuable and affirming.
It is vital for those consuming this media, however, to remember that user-generated content on social media is not vetted or regulated. Short TikTok or Instagram videos are designed to grab attention, not to teach nuance or cite scientific studies. As it turns out, most popular ADHD posts are misleading or overly simplistic, at best. One analysis of ADHD TikTok videos found that over half were found to be “misleading” by professionals. Because social feeds reinforce what we already believe (the “echo chamber” effect, or confirmation bias), we can easily see only content that seems to confirm our own experiences, beliefs, or fears.
Stories aren’t a substitute for expert guidance.
It’s important to recognize the difference between personal experience and general expertise. Having ADHD makes you an expert on your ADHD, but it does not make you an expert on ADHD for everyone. Personal stories are not scientific facts. Even if someone’s personal journey is true, the same advice or experience may not apply to others. For instance, a strategy that helps one person focus might have no effect– or possibly even a negative effect– on someone else.
Researchers have found that most ADHD content on social media is based on creators’ own experiences, not on systematic research. In one study, almost every TikTok ADHD creator who listed credentials actually just cited their personal story. Worse, about 95% of those videos never noted that their tips might not apply to everyone (journals.plos.org.) In other words, they sound absolute even though they really only reflect one person’s situation. It’s easy to misunderstand the condition if we take those singular experiences as universal facts.
So how can you tell when someone is speaking from expertise rather than personal experience or hearsay? Experienced professionals usually speak cautiously, rather than in absolutes. They tend to say things like “research suggests,” “some studies show,” or “evidence indicates,” rather than claiming something always or never happens. As one health-communication guide puts it, a sign of a trustworthy source is that they do not speak in absolutes; instead, they use qualifiers like “may,” “might,” or refer to specific studies. For example, an expert might say, “Some people with ADHD may have difficulty with organization,” instead of “ADHD people always lose things.”
Real experts also cite evidence. In science and psychology, experts usually share knowledge through peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, or professional conferences – not just social media posts. Reliable health information is typically backed by references to studies published in reputable journals.
If someone makes a claim online, ask: Do they point to research, or is it just their own testimony? This is why it’s wise to prefer content where the author is a recognized authority (like a doctor or researcher) and where references to scientific studies or official guidelines are provided. In fact, advice from sites ending in “.gov”, “.edu”, or “.org” (government, university, or professional organizations) tends to be more reliable than random blogs. When in doubt, look up who wrote the material and whether it cites peer-reviewed research.
When navigating mental health information online, remember these key points:
If you see sweeping statements like “This one habit will predict if you have ADHD” or “Eliminating this one food will cure your ADHD symptoms”--- that’s a red flag. Instead, the hallmark of expert advice is a tone of humility (“evidence suggests,” “it appears that,” etc.), clear references to studies or consensus statements, and an acknowledgment that individual differences exist.
At the same time, we need to acknowledge that community voices are incredibly valuable – they help us feel understood and less alone. The goal is not to dismiss personal stories, but to balance them with facts and evidence-based information. Let lived experience spark questions, but verify important advice with credible sources. Follow trusted organizations (for example, the National Institutes of Health, CDC, or ADHD specialist groups) and mental health professionals who communicate carefully. Use the online ADHD community for support and sharing tips, but remember it’s just one piece of the puzzle.
By being a savvy reader (checking credentials, looking for cited evidence, and spotting overgeneralizations), you can make the most of online ADHD content. In doing so, you give yourself both the empathy of community and the accuracy of real expertise. That way, you’ll be well-equipped to separate helpful insights from hype and to keep learning from both personal stories and science-based experts.
Stimulant medications have long been considered the default first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, and public narratives all reinforce the idea that stimulants should be tried first, with non-stimulants reserved for cases where stimulants fail or are poorly tolerated.
I recently partnered with leading ADHD researcher Jeffrey Newcorn for a Nature Mental Health commentary on the subject. We argue that this hierarchy deserves reexamination. It is important to note that our position is not anti-stimulant. Rather, we call into question whether the evidence truly supports treating non-stimulants as secondary options, and we propose that both classes should be considered equal first-line treatments.
Stimulants have earned their reputation as the go-to drug of choice for ADHD. They are among the most effective medications in psychiatry, reliably reducing core ADHD symptoms and improving daily functioning when properly titrated and monitored. However, when stimulant and non-stimulant medications are compared more closely, the gap between them appears smaller than commonly assumed.
Meta-analyses often report slightly higher average response rates for stimulants, but head-to-head trials where patients are directly randomized to one medication versus another frequently find no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or tolerability. Network meta-analyses similarly show that while some stimulant formulations have modest advantages, these differences are small and inconsistent, particularly in adults.
When translated into clinical terms, the advantage of stimulants becomes even more modest. Based on existing data, approximately eight patients would need to be treated with a stimulant rather than a non-stimulant for one additional person to experience a meaningful benefit. This corresponds to only a 56% probability that a given patient will respond better to a stimulant than to a non-stimulant. This difference is not what we would refer to as “clinically significant.”
One reason non-stimulants may appear less effective is the way efficacy is typically reported. Most comparisons rely on standardized mean differences, a method of averages that may mask heterogeneity of treatment effects. In reality, ADHD medications do not work uniformly across patients.
For example, evidence suggests that response to some non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine, is bimodal: this means that many patients respond extremely well, while others respond poorly, with few in between. When this happens, average effect sizes can obscure the fact that a substantial subgroup benefits just as much as they would from a stimulant. In other words, non-stimulants are not necessarily less effective across the board, but that they are simply different in who they help.
In our commentary, we also highlight structural issues in ADHD research. Stimulant trials are particularly vulnerable to unblinding, as their immediate and observable physiological effects can reveal treatment assignment, potentially inflating perceived efficacy. Non-stimulants, with slower onset and subtler effects, are less prone to this bias.
Additionally, many randomized trials exclude patients with common psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, or substance-use disorders. Using co-diagnoses as exclusion criteria for clinical trials on ADHD medications is nonviable when considering the large number of ADHD patients who also have other diagnoses. Real-world data suggest that a large proportion of individuals with ADHD would not qualify for typical trials, limiting how well results generalize to everyday clinical practice.
Standard evaluations of medication tolerability focus on side effects experienced by patients, but this narrow lens misses broader societal consequences. Stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, which introduces logistical barriers, regulatory burdens, supply vulnerabilities, and administrative strain for both patients and clinicians.
When used as directed, stimulant medications do not increase risk of substance-use disorders (and, in fact, tend to reduce these rates); however, as ADHD awareness has spread and stimulants are more widely prescribed, non-medical use of prescription stimulants has become more widespread, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Non-stimulants do not carry these risks.
Non-stimulants are not without drawbacks themselves, however. They typically take longer to work and have higher non-response rates, making them less suitable in situations where rapid results are essential. These limitations, however, do not justify relegating them to second-line status across the board.
This is a call for abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, future guidelines should present stimulant and non-stimulant medications as equally valid starting points, clearly outlining trade-offs related to onset, efficacy, misuse risk, and practical burden.
The evidence already supports this shift. The remaining challenge is aligning clinical practice and policy with what the data, and patient-centered care, are increasingly telling us.
Today, most treatment guidelines recommend starting ADHD treatment with stimulant medications. These medicines often work quickly and can be very effective, but they do not help every child, and they can have bothersome side effects, such as appetite loss, sleep problems, or mood changes. Families also worry about long-term effects, the possibility of misuse or abuse, as well as the recent nationwide stimulant shortages. Non-stimulant medications are available, but they are usually used only after stimulants have not been effective.
This stimulant-first approach means that many patients who would respond well to a non-stimulant will end up on a stimulant medication anyway. This study addresses this issue by testing two different ways of starting medication treatment for school-age children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We want to know whether beginning with a non-stimulant medicine can work as well as the “stimulant-first” approach, which is currently used by most prescribers.
From this study, we hope to learn:
Our goal is to give families and clinicians clear, practical evidence to support a truly shared decision: “Given this specific child, should we start with a stimulant or a non-stimulant?”
Who will be in the study?
We will enroll about 1,000 children and adolescents, ages 6 to 16, who:
We will include children with common co-occurring conditions (such as anxiety, depression, learning or developmental disorders) so that the results reflect the “real-world” children seen in clinics, not just highly selected research volunteers.
How will the treatments be assigned?
This is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, which means:
Parents and clinicians will know which type of medicine the child is taking, as in usual care. However, the experts who rate how much each child has improved using our main outcome measure will not be told which treatment strategy the child received. This helps keep their ratings unbiased.
What will participants be asked to do?
Each family will be followed for 12 months. We will collect information at:
At these times:
We will also track:
Data will be entered into a secure, HIPAA-compliant research database. Study staff at each site will work closely with families to make participation as convenient as possible, including offering flexible visit schedules and electronic options for completing forms when feasible.
How will we analyze the results?
Using standard statistical methods, we will:
All analyses will follow the “intention-to-treat” principle, meaning we compare children based on the strategy they were originally assigned to, even if their medication is later changed. This mirrors real-world decision-making: once you choose a starting strategy, what tends to happen over time?
Why is this study necessary now?
This study addresses a critical, timely gap in ADHD care:
In short, this study is needed now to move ADHD medication decisions beyond “one-size-fits-all.” By rigorously comparing stimulant-first and non-stimulant-first strategies in real-world settings, and by focusing on what matters most to children and families overall functioning, side effects, and long-term well-being, we aim to give patients, parents, and clinicians the information they need to choose the best starting treatment for each child.
This project was conceived by Professor Stephen V. Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University, Department of Psychiatry, Syracuse, NY) and Professor Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY). It will be conducted at nine sites across the USA.
_logo%201.svg)
