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.
May 22, 2025
Background
A meta-analysis examined whether noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques could help reduce core symptoms of ADHD and improve cognitive function. NIBS refers to techniques that stimulate brain activity using low electrical or magnetic currents applied from outside the head. They studied transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), while newer methods like tRNS (random noise) and tACS (alternating current) lacked enough studies to be included in the analysis.
Methods
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—considered the gold standard in clinical research—were included in the review. For tDCS, the results were promising:
-A meta-analysis of 12 studies (582 participants) showed small but statistically significant improvements in inhibitory control (the ability to stop or delay responses).
-Nine studies (390 participants) showed small-to-medium improvements in working memory.
-Two smaller studies (94 participants) hinted at improvement in cognitive flexibility, but the results were not strong enough to be considered reliable.
-Seven studies (277 participants) found medium-to-large improvements in linattention, though results varied significantly between studies.
Hyperactivity and impulsivity showed some improvement, but again, the number of studies was too small to draw firm conclusions.
For rTMS, however, the results were not as encouraging. A meta-analysis of three studies (137 participants) found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms.
Conclusion
While the results suggest that tDCS may offer some benefit for executive functions and attention in people with ADHD—especially when targeting specific brain areas like the F3/F4 regions (roughly over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex)—the authors emphasize the need for further research. Most studies didn’t include long-term follow-up, and there’s still a lack of consistency in how stimulation is applied across studies. Moreover, even when positive findings emerged for executive functions is not clear how these translate into changes that are meaningful for the patient.
Importantly, this study doesn’t suggest that NIBS should replace standard treatments. Although the paper highlights challenges with medication adherence and side effects, ADHD medications and behavior therapies remain the most well-established and effective treatments for most patients. The improvements seen with NIBS so far are relatively small and preliminary in comparison.
Instead, the findings support the idea that NIBS could one day serve as a complementary tool—especially for individuals who don’t respond well to existing treatments. But until more rigorous and long-term studies are done, NIBS should be viewed as an experimental approach, not a substitute.
Yao Yin, Xueke Wang, and Tingyong Feng, “Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Improving Cognitive Deficits and Clinical Symptoms in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Brain Sciences (2024), 14, 1237, https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14121237.
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.
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 ..."
A two-year study examined the effect of digital media use on ADHD symptoms in over 2500 adolescents. An earlier meta-analysis found that traditional media use (TV and video console games) was modestly associated with ADHD-like behaviors (Nikkelen et al 2014). The current study extends the examination to a large sample, with modern digital media delivery of high-intensity stimuli, including mobile platforms.
The authors used the Current Symptom Self-Report Scale (Barkley R 1998) to establish ADHD symptoms at baseline and six-month assessments over 24 months. None of the subjects reported having ADHD, study entry. Subjects were considered to be ADHD symptom-positive (the primary binary outcome) if they had greater than or equal to six inattentive and/or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms rated on this frequency-based scale (0-3). Modern digital media use was surveyed on a frequency basis for 14 media activities(including checking social media sites, texting, browsing, downloading or streaming music, posting pictures, online chatting, playing games, online shopping, and video chatting). The most common media activity was the high-frequency checking of social media. Of note, high-frequency engagement in each of the digital media activities was significantly, but moderately, associated with having ADHD symptoms at each six-month follow-up (OR 1.10), even after adjusting for covariates. High-frequency media use at baseline seemed to be associated with the development of ADHD symptoms.
Among the 495 students who reported no high-frequency media use at baseline, 4.6% met ADHD symptom criteria at follow-up. Among 114 students scoring 7 for high-frequency media use at baseline, 9.5% met the symptoms criteria. For the 51 students with a score of 14 for high-frequency media use at baseline, the rate was 10.5% (both comparisons were statistically significant).
This study is important in that it notes that an association between high-frequency digital media use (in current platforms and modalities) may be associated with the development of ADHD-like symptoms. A significant limitation of the study, as noted by the authors, is that ADHD-like symptoms do not establish a diagnosis of ADHD and do not assess impairment; therefore, these results must be interpreted with some caution. It does highlight that even with the current level of understanding, it might be prudent for clinicians to recommend limiting high-frequency media use for adolescent patients.
The Background:
Motor vehicle crashes remain one of the most significant public health challenges in the United States. In 2022 alone, nearly 44,000 people died on American roads, and more than 2.6 million crash-related injuries required emergency care. Most people are familiar with the usual suspects: drunk driving, speeding, and distracted driving from phones. These risks are well-documented and the focus of ongoing public safety campaigns.
But a serious risk factor has been flying under the radar: untreated ADHD. Despite receiving little attention from the public, policymakers, or transportation safety agencies, it may belong in the same conversation as these better-known dangers.
ADHD is not currently recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a driving risk factor; yet inattention and impulsivity, two of its defining features, are consistently cited as common contributors to crashes. Beyond these core symptoms, adults with ADHD may also experience emotional dysregulation, which can further impair driving behavior.
The Research:
Prior studies on ADHD and crash risk have produced estimates ranging from a 5% to a 70% increase. This massive heterogeneity has made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. This new meta-analysis set out to offer some clarity on these numbers.
Researchers focused specifically on adults aged 18 to 65 with a formal ADHD diagnosis who were not receiving treatment, comparing them to controls without ADHD. Four studies met these criteria, collectively covering more than 2.75 million people.
The Results:
The findings were striking: untreated ADHD was associated with a 93% increase in crash risk (95% confidence interval: 88%–99%). There was no evidence of publication bias. Although there was meaningful variation across studies, most of it stemmed from the smallest study (just 36 participants) which reported an outlier estimate of a 16-fold increase.
To put the 93% figure in context: a separate meta-analysis found that alcohol use is associated with a 150% increase in crash risk. Another way to understand just how significant this risk really is, untreated ADHD raises crash risk by more than half as much as alcohol does.
The analysis also found a dose-response relationship between ADHD symptom severity and crash risk: each incremental increase in symptom severity corresponded to a 5–6% higher crash risk. At the highest severity levels, crash risk approached that associated with alcohol use. This gradient reinforces that we're not looking at a binary distinction between “has ADHD” and “doesn’t” — the worse the symptoms, the greater the danger on the road.
The Takeaway:
These findings have practical implications for patients, families, clinicians, and policymakers alike. Untreated ADHD is not a minor footnote in the driving safety literature; rather, it is a substantial, measurable, and potentially modifiable risk factor. The question of whether and how it should be factored into licensing policy, clinical practice, and public health messaging deserves serious attention.
As populations grow, more children are growing up surrounded by traffic noise and polluted air. In most cities, these two factors tend to go hand-in-hand; yet, most previous research has examined these exposures separately. Many reviews focused on a single pollutant (such as fine particulate matter, PM2.5), or on a single developmental window, such as pregnancy or early childhood. Few have asked how noise and air pollution compare as risk factors, or how prenatal and postnatal exposures differ in their effects.
A new meta-analysis set out to address those gaps. It examined evidence on both environmental noise and several major air pollutants in relation to ADHD, compared exposures before versus after birth, and pooled data across countries and regions. Eligible studies involved children and adolescents under 18, used objective measures of environmental exposure, and assessed ADHD using either clinical diagnosis or standardized rating scales.
Noise
Nine studies, combining data from over 100,000 children and adolescents (all in European countries and Canada) found that high noise exposure was associated with 3% greater odds of ADHD. Prenatal noise exposure showed no effect; childhood exposure alone drove the association, at 4% greater odds. This is a negligible effect size that could easily reflect unmeasured confounding factors rather than a true causal relationship.
Nitrogen dioxide
Thirteen studies covering nearly one million children and adolescents in Europe, Canada, China, and South Korea found that nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) exposure was associated with 11% greater odds of ADHD. As with noise, prenatal exposure showed no independent effect. When the analysis was restricted to the five studies that used clinical diagnoses alone — generally considered the most reliable measure — the estimated odds rose to between 20% and 80% higher. The wide range reflects substantial variation across studies.
Pollutants with no significant effect
Four studies (97,500 participants) examining nitric oxide (NO), three studies (over 63,000 participants) on ozone, and three studies (over 28,000 participants) on sulfur dioxide found no significant associations with ADHD.
Particulate matter
The strongest associations emerged for particulate matter. Twelve studies involving nearly 160,000 participants in China, the US, Canada, and Europe found that exposure to fine particles (PM2.5, 2.5 microns in diameter) was associated with 30% greater odds of ADHD. Ten studies covering more than a quarter of a million participants in India, China, South Korea, and Europe found that coarser particles (PM10, 10 microns) were associated with 50% greater odds. In both cases, prenatal exposure showed no association, which is consistent with the fact that fetuses do not breathe air through developed lungs. When restricted to clinically diagnosed ADHD, PM2.5 was associated with roughly 50% greater odds, and PM10 with more than double the odds.
The Results
Across all exposures examined, particulate matter showed the clearest and strongest associations with ADHD, followed by nitrogen dioxide. Noise reached statistical significance but at a trivially small effect size. Nitric oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide showed no significant associations.
The authors found no evidence of publication bias which strengthens confidence in the overall pattern. However, there was marked heterogeneity across individual studies: results varied considerably, which urges caution in treating any single estimate as definitive. These are associations, not proven causal relationships, and the possibility that unmeasured factors explain part of the signal cannot be ruled out.
The Background:
Over the past two decades, diagnostic rates for adult ADHD have roughly doubled, and stimulant prescriptions in the United States skyrocketed by more than 50% between 2012 and 2023, particularly among girls and women. While these medications help many individuals manage their symptoms, a landmark 2026 article published in European Neuropsychopharmacology tackles an important question that is rarely discussed: When should doctors and patients consider stopping them?
The Discussion:
To answer this, the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) gathered a task force of 45 international experts spanning 12 countries. Through a rigorous evaluation process, they reached an overwhelming agreement on a framework for "deprescribing", the planned, supervised reduction or cessation of a medication. Here are the core insights from these ground-breaking guidelines and what they mean for adults navigating long-term ADHD treatment.
When the Treatment Isn’t Yielding Benefits
One of the most straightforward reasons to consider stopping a stimulant is if it simply isn’t doing its job. The task force agreed that if a patient does not experience an optimal response, measured by actual symptom reduction, improved daily functioning, and a better quality of life, even after trying a high, optimized dose, it may be time to step back and look at alternative options.
Sometimes, the issue goes back to the initial evaluation. The criteria for diagnosing ADHD have expanded over the years, and brief psychiatric evaluations can occasionally lead to diagnostic inaccuracies. If a thorough reevaluation reveals that the original ADHD diagnosis was incorrect, the expert consensus is clear: stimulant deprescribing is appropriate unless another stimulant-responsive condition is evident. Furthermore, if a patient develops a persistent tolerance to the drug that cannot be resolved by safe dose adjustments, a temporary taper or drug holiday may be recommended.
When the Risks to Health Outweigh the Rewards
Our bodies and health needs naturally shift over time, meaning a medication that worked safely years ago might pose a threat to your health today. The experts concluded that deprescribing should be heavily considered if stimulants exacerbate a concurrent medical or psychiatric illness. For example, although rare, stimulants can unintentionally trigger mania or psychosis in adults with unstable or unrecognized comorbid bipolar disorder.
Physical health developments are equally critical. If an adult develops a newly arising or unstable cardiovascular condition, such as a cardiac arrhythmia, ischemia, or cardiomyopathy, the risk-benefit balance changes dramatically. Additionally, if severe side effects occur that cannot be managed by reducing the dosage, or if dangerous new drug-drug interactions emerge, stopping the medication under medical supervision protects the patient's long-term well-being.
Addressing Misuse and the Complex Role of Cannabis
Because stimulant medications target brain reward and wakefulness circuitry, they can foster a propensity for misuse. Studies indicate that more than 1 in 5 adults prescribed stimulants have misused them, and 1 in 6 have diverted their medication to others. The task force emphasizes that deprescribing is warranted if a patient persistently takes doses higher than prescribed against medical advice, uses the medication purely for unauthorized performance enhancement, or has an untreated, coexisting substance use disorder.
And what about cannabis? This topic sparked the most debate among the experts, falling just short of an official consensus with 71% agreement that regular cannabis use alone shouldn't automatically trigger a stimulant stoppage. Recognizing the complexity, such as how chronic cannabis use can overlap with ADHD executive function deficits, the task force proposed a structured monitoring approach instead of an immediate cutoff. Clinicians are encouraged to track the patient every 1 to 3 months using standardized symptom tools and random urine drug screens to verify whether cannabis use is actively neutralizing the stimulant's therapeutic benefits.
The Path Forward: Safe Tapering and Lifestyle Support
If you and your doctor decide that stopping a stimulant is the right path, it shouldn’t happen overnight. The task force strongly recommends that medications be gradually tapered off at a rate tailored to the individual to minimize potential disruptions and distinguish between transient withdrawal and a true return of ADHD symptoms.
Crucially, stopping a medication doesn't mean stopping treatment. The experts highlight that the success of any deprescribing plan is significantly enhanced when patients focus on optimizing modifiable lifestyle factors. Prioritizing sleep hygiene, staying physically active, and implementing structured behavioral strategies can support executive functioning and help sustain your cognitive gains even as the medication is reduced or eliminated.
The Takeaway:
The decision to continue or stop an ADHD medication is a deeply personal one that requires balancing real-world efficacy, safety, and individual health changes. These new consensus recommendations provide an essential roadmap to help adults navigate their long-term mental health journeys safely and effectively.
Are you or a loved one currently evaluating your long-term relationship with ADHD medication? Consider scheduling a check-in with your healthcare provider to discuss whether your current treatment plan still perfectly matches your health needs today.
_logo%201.svg)
