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.
Methylphenidate is known as the gold-standard treatment for ADHD, increasing dopamine concentrations and helping to focus. However, these psychostimulants may be less well-tolerated in adults. Adverse effects include decreased appetite, nausea, racing heartbeat, restlessness, nervousness, and insomnia.
Neurofeedback is a non-pharmaceutical treatment that combines cognitive behavioral therapy techniques like conditioning and positive reinforcement with electroencephalography (EEG) feedback. Electrodes are placed on specific brain areas, guiding patients to regulate their brainwave activity.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) uses electromagnetism to induce an electric field by passing a magnetic field through the scalp. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on the other hand, directly applies an electric current through the scalp. Both repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and tDCS primarily target the outermost layers of neurons, as they are non-invasive methods. Nevertheless, both techniques are believed to affect deeper layers through interconnected neuronal networks.
A French research team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to perform a meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of these experimental treatment techniques.
Eight studies – four using rTMS and another four using tDCS – met the inclusion criteria. Studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and had to involve multiple sessions of treatment. Participants had to be adults previously diagnosed with ADHD.
Outcomes were measured through self-rated scales, neuropsychological tests, and electrophysiological pre-post evaluations.
Separate meta-analyses of the four tDCS RCTs combining 154 participants and of the four rTMS RCTs encompassing 149 participants likewise reported no significant improvements. In all cases variation in outcomes between studies was moderate, and there were no signs of publication bias.
Meta-analysis of all eight studies with a combined total of 421 participants reported no significant improvements over controls. Narrowing down to studies that used sham controls likewise produced no significant improvements. So, despite the title of this study, these neuromechanistic treatments do not appear to be the future of treatment for adult ADHD.
Margaux Courrèges, Marie Hoareau, Carole Levenes, and Hassan Rahioui, “Comparative efficacy of neurofeedback, tDCS, and TMS: The future of therapy for adults with ADHD. A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Affective Disorders (2025), 388: 119585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119585.
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 ..."
.png)
The U.S. government released a sweeping document titled The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again, developed by the President’s “Make America Healthy Again” Commission. Chaired by public figures and physicians with ties to the current administration, the report presents a broad diagnosis of what it calls a national health crisis among children. It cites rising rates of obesity, diabetes, allergies, mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorders, and chronic disease as signs of a generation at risk.
The report's overarching goal is to shift U.S. health policy away from reactive, pharmaceutical-based care and toward prevention, resilience, and long-term well-being. It emphasizes reforming the food system, reducing environmental chemical exposure, addressing lifestyle factors like physical inactivity and screen overuse, and rethinking what it calls the “overmedicalization” of American children.
While some of the report’s arguments are steeped in political rhetoric and controversial claims—particularly around vaccines and mental health diagnoses—others are rooted in well-established public health science. This blog aims to highlight where the MAHA Report gets the science right, especially as it relates to childhood health and ADHD.
Although the MAHA Report contains several debatable assertions, it also outlines six key public health priorities that are well-supported by decades of research. If implemented thoughtfully, these recommendations might make a meaningful difference in the health of American children:
Reduce Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) Consumption
UPFs now make up nearly 70% of children’s daily calories. These foods are high in added sugars, refined starches, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives, but low in nutrients. Studies—including a 2019 NIH-controlled feeding study—show that UPFs promote weight gain, overeating, and metabolic dysfunction. What can help: Tax incentives for fresh food retailers, improved school meals, front-of-pack labeling, and food industry regulation.
Promote Physical Activity and Limiting Sedentary Time
Most American children don’t get the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day. This contributes to obesity, cardiovascular risk, and even mental health issues. Physical activity is known to improve attention, mood, sleep, and self-regulation. What can help: Mandatory daily PE, school recess policies, walkable community infrastructure, and screen-time education.
Addressing Sleep Deprivation
Teens today sleep less than they did a decade ago, in part due to screen use and early school start times. Sleep loss is linked to depression, suicide risk, poor academic performance, and metabolic problems. What can help: Later school start times, family education about sleep hygiene, and limits on evening screen exposure.
Improving Maternal and Early Childhood Nutrition
The report indirectly supports actions that are backed by strong evidence: encouraging breastfeeding, supporting maternal whole-food diets, and improving infant nutrition. These are known to reduce chronic disease risk later in life.
ADHD is one of the most discussed neurodevelopmental disorders in the MAHA Report, but many of its claims about ADHD are misleading, oversimplified, or inconsistent with decades of scientific evidence, much of which is described in the International Consensus Statement on ADHD, and other references given below.
This is true. Diagnosis rates have risen over the past two decades, due in part to better recognition, broadened diagnostic criteria, and changes in healthcare access. Diagnosis rates in some parts of the country are too high, but we don’t know why. That should be addressed and investigated. MAHA attributes increasing diagnoses to ‘overmedicalization’. That is a hypothesis worth testing but not a conclusion we can draw from available data.
These have been associated with ADHD but have not been documented as causes. ADHD is highly heritable, with genetic factors accounting for 70–80% of the risk. Unlike genetic studies, environmental risk studies are compromised by confounding variables. There are good reasons to address these issues but doing so is unlikely to reduce diagnostic rates of ADHD.
❌ Inaccurate: ADHD medications don’t work long-term.
The report criticizes stimulant use but fails to note that ADHD medications are among the most effective psychiatric treatments, especially when consistently used. They cite the MTA study’s long term outcome study of kids assigned to medication vs. placebo as showing medications don’t work in the long term. But that comparison is flawed because during the follow-up period, many kids on medication stopped taking them and many on placebo started taking medications. Many studies document that medications for ADHD protect against many real-world outcomes such as accidental injuries, substance abuse and even premature death.
Despite the issues discussed above, the MAHA Report can indirectly help children and adults with ADHD by pushing for systemic changes that reduce ultra-processed food consumption, increase physical activity, and motivate better sleep practices.
In other words, you don’t need to reject the diagnosis of ADHD to support broader changes in how we feed, educate, and care for children. A more supportive, less toxic environment benefits everyone—including those with ADHD.
ADHD is associated with impaired executive functioning. Executive functions are a set of mental skills that include working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control. These are skills we use every day to learn, work, and manage daily life. Trouble with executive function can make it hard to focus, follow directions, and handle emotions.
A Chinese study team searched for studies on non-pharmacological treatments of children and adolescents with ADHD aged 5 to 18 years intended to improve their executive functioning.
An initial methodological weakness was the decision to combine studies using formal ADHD diagnoses based on professional psychiatric manuals (DSM 3/4/5 and ICD 10/11) and studies relying on other methods such as parent reports.
This lack of rigor in identifying ADHD is surprising given that the team used studies that directly measured executive functioning through neurocognitive tasks, excluding those that relied on parent- or teacher-reported questionnaires.
67 studies involving 74 training interventions met the criteria. Meta-analysis of all these studies, encompassing a total of 3,101 participants, suggested medium-to-large effect size improvements in executive functioning. There was evidence of publication bias, but trim-and-fill adjustment increased the estimated effect size to large.
Nevertheless, there were further methodological shortcomings:
In this case, subgroup analysis mostly failed to explain the heterogeneity, with a single exception. Meta-analysis of the 16 studies with 744 participants that explored executive function-specific curriculum found small-to-medium effect size improvements, with no heterogeneity.
Unfortunately, the team did not perform a separate publication bias analysis on this subgroup, just as it failed to do so on any of the other subgroups.
By far the strongest evidence of benefit came from meta-analysis of the 17 studies with 558 participants evaluating physical exercise. Here the outcome pointed to very large effect size improvements in executive functioning. Yet once again, heterogeneity was extremely high. Breaking this down further between aerobic exercise and cognitively engaged physical exercise made no difference. Both types had the same very high effect size, with very wide heterogeneity. Again, there was no separate evaluation of publication bias on this group.
Meta-analyses of thirteen studies of neurofeedback combining 444 participants, and fifteen studies of cognitive training encompassing 727 participants, both pointed to just-short-of-large effect size improvements in executive function. Meta-analysis of twelve studies of game-based training with 598 participants indicated medium effect size gains. But again, in all three subgroups there was great variation between studies, and no analysis of publication bias.
While these meta-analyses are suggestive of efficacy, especially for physical exercise interventions, their methodological shortcomings mean we will have to await more rigorous meta-analyses to draw any more settled conclusions. Moreover, these meta-analyses did not evaluate the adequacy of the control groups used in the trials, which is a big shortcoming given prior work showing that the effect of non-pharmacologic treatments are very weak or non-existent when adequate controls are used.
Background:
ADHD treatment includes medication, behavioral therapy, dietary changes, and special education. Stimulants are usually the first choice but may cause side effects like appetite loss and stomach discomfort, leading some to stop using them. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective but not always sufficient on its own. Research is increasingly exploring non-drug options, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which may boost medication effectiveness and improve results.
What is tDCS?
tDCS delivers a weak electric current (1.0–2.0 mA) via scalp electrodes to modulate brain activity, with current flowing from anode to cathode. Anodal stimulation increases neuronal activity, while cathodal stimulation generally inhibits it, though effects vary by region and neural circuitry. The impact of tDCS depends on factors such as current intensity, duration, and electrode shape. It targets cortical areas, often stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for ADHD due to its role in cognitive control. Stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to improve response inhibition, making it another target for ADHD therapy.
There is an ongoing debate about how effective tDCS is for individuals with ADHD. One study found that applying tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can help reduce impulsivity symptoms in ADHD, whereas another study reported that several sessions of anodic tDCS did not lead to improvements in ADHD symptoms or cognitive abilities.
New Research:
Two recent meta-analyses have searched for a resolution to these conflicting findings. Both included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using either sham stimulation or a waitlist for controls.
Each team included seven studies in their respective meta-analyses, three of which appeared in both.
Both Wang et al. (three RCTs totaling 97 participants) and Wen et al. (three RCTs combining 121 participants) reported very large effect size reductions in inattention symptoms from tDCS versus controls. There was only one RCT overlap between them. Wang et al. had moderate to high variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, whereas Wen et al. had virtually none. There was no indication of publication bias.
Whereas Wen et al.’s same three RCTs found no significant reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, Wang et al. combined five RCTs with 221 total participants and reported a medium effect size reduction in impulsivity symptoms. This time, there was an overlap of two RCTs between the studies. Wen et al. had no heterogeneity, while Wang et al. had moderate heterogeneity. Neither showed signs of publication bias.
Turning to performance-based tasks, Wang et al. reported a medium effect size improvement in attentional performance from tDCS over controls (three RCTs totaling 136 participants), but no improvement in inhibitory control (five RCTs combining 234 persons).
Wang et al. found no significant difference in adverse events (four RCTs combining 161 participants) between tDCS and controls, with no heterogeneity. Wen et al. found no significant difference in dropout rates (4 RCTs totaling 143 individuals), again with no heterogeneity.
Wang et al. concluded, “tDCS may improve impulsive symptoms and inattentive symptoms among ADHD patients without increasing adverse effects, which is critical for clinical practice, especially when considering noninvasive brain stimulation, where patient safety is a key concern.”
Wen et al. further concluded, “Our study supported the use of tDCS for improving the self-reported symptoms of inattention and objective attentional performance in adults diagnosed with ADHD. However, the limited number of available trials hindered a robust investigation into the parameters required for establishing a standard protocol, such as the optimal location of electrode placement and treatment frequency in this setting. Further large-scale double-blind sham-controlled clinical trials that include assessments of self-reported symptoms and performance-based tasks both immediately after interventions and during follow-up periods, as well as comparisons of the efficacy of tDCS targeting different brain locations, are warranted to address these issues.”
The Take-Away:
Previous studies have shown mixed results on the benefits of this therapy on ADHD. These new findings suggest that tDCS may hold some real promise for adults with ADHD. While the technique didn’t meaningfully shift hyperactivity or impulsivity, it was well-tolerated and showed benefit, especially in self-reported symptoms. However, with only a handful of trials to draw from, it would be a mistake to suggest tDCS as a standard treatment protocol. Larger, well-designed studies are the next essential step to clarify where, how, and how often tDCS works best.
Background:
The development of ADHD is strongly associated with functional impairments in the prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which plays a key role in maintaining attention and controlling impulses. Moreover, imbalances in neurotransmitters like dopamine and norepinephrine are widely regarded as major neurobiological factors contributing to ADHD.
Executive functions are a group of higher-order cognitive skills that guide thoughts and actions toward goals. “Executive function” refers to three main components: inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Inhibitory control helps curb impulsive actions to stay on track. Working memory allows temporary storage and manipulation of information for complex tasks. Cognitive flexibility enables switching attention and strategies in varied or demanding situations.
Research shows that about 89% of children with ADHD have specific executive function impairments. These difficulties in attention, self-control, and working memory often result in academic and social issues. Without timely intervention, these issues can lead to emotional disorders like depression, anxiety, and irritability, further affecting both physical health and social development.
Currently, primary treatments for executive function deficits in school-aged children with ADHD include medication and behavioral or psychological therapies, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). While stimulant medications do improve executive function, not all patients are able to tolerate these medications. Behavioral interventions like neurofeedback provide customized care but show variable effectiveness and require specialized resources, making them hard to sustain. Safer, more practical, and long-lasting treatment options are urgently needed.
Exercise interventions are increasingly recognized as a safe, effective way to improve executive function in children with ADHD. However, systematic studies on school-aged children remain limited.
Moreover, there are two main scoring methods for assessing executive function: positive scoring (higher values mean better performance, such as accuracy) and reverse scoring (lower values mean better performance, such as reaction time). These different methods can affect how results are interpreted and compared across studies. This meta-analysis explored how different measurement and scoring methods might influence results, addressing important gaps in the research.
The Study:
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving school-aged children (6–13 years old) diagnosed with ADHD by DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10, ICD-11, or the SNAP-IV scale were included. Studies were excluded if the experimental group received non-exercise interventions or exercise combined with other interventions.
Cognitive Flexibility
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a narrowly non-significant small effect size improvement relative to controls (eight RCTs, 268 children). Using reverse scoring, however, they were associated with a medium effect size improvement (eleven RCTs, 452 children). Variation (heterogeneity) in individual RCT outcomes was moderate, with no sign of publication bias in both instances.
Inhibitory Control
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a medium effect size improvement relative to controls (ten RCTs, 421 children). Using reverse scoring, there was an association with a medium effect size improvement (eight RCTs, 265 children). Heterogeneity was moderate with no sign of publication bias in either case.
Working Memory
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a medium effect size improvement relative to controls (six RCTs, 321 children). Using reverse scoring, the exercise was associated with a medium effect size improvement (five RCTs, 143 children). Heterogeneity was low with no indication of publication bias in both instances.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “Exercise interventions can effectively improve inhibitory control and working memory in school-aged children with ADHD, regardless of whether positive or reverse scoring methods are applied. However, the effects of exercise on cognitive flexibility appear to be limited, with significant improvements observed only under reverse scoring. Moreover, the effects of exercise interventions on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility vary across different measurement paradigms and scoring methods, indicating the importance of considering these methodological differences when interpreting results.”
Although this work is intriguing, it does not show that exercise significantly improves the symptoms of ADHD in children. This means that exercise, although beneficial for many reasons, should not be viewed as a replacement for evidence-based treatments for the disorder.
A recent Wall Street Journal article raised alarms by concluding that many children who start medication for ADHD will later end up on several psychiatric drugs. It’s an emotional topic that will make many parents, teachers, and even doctors worry: “Are we putting kids on a conveyor belt of medications?”
The article seeks to shine a light on the use of more than one psychiatric medication for children with ADHD. My biggest worry about the article is that it presents itself as a scientific study because they analyzed a database. It is not a scientific study. It is a journalistic investigation that does not meet the standards of a scientific report..
The WJS brings attention to several issues that parents and prescribers should think about. It documents that some kids with ADHD are on more than one psychiatric medication, and some are receiving drugs like antipsychotics, which have serious side effects. Is that appropriate? Access to good therapy, careful evaluation, and follow-up care can be lacking, especially for low-income families. Can that be improved? On that level, the article is doing something valuable: it’s shining a spotlight on potential problems.
It is, of course, fine for a journalist to raise questions, but it is not OK for them to pretend that they’ve done a scientific investigation that proves anything. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Journalism vs. Science: Why Peer Review Matters
Journalists can get big datasets, hire data journalists, and present numbers that look scientific. But consider the differences between Journalism and Science. These types of articles are usually checked by editors and fact-checkers. Their main goals are:
Is this fact basically correct?
Are we being fair?
Are we avoiding legal problems?
But editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific data analysis methods. Scientific reports are evaluated by experts who are not part of the project. They ask tough questions like:
Exactly how did you define ADHD?
How did you handle missing data?
Did you address confounding?
Did you confuse correlation with causation?
If the authors of the study cannot address these and other technical issues, the paper is rejected.
The WSJ article has the veneer of science but lacks its methodology.
Correlation vs. Causation: A Classic Trap
The article’s storyline goes something like this: A kid starts ADHD medication. She has additional problems or side effects caused by the ADHD medications. Because of that, the prescriber adds more drugs. That leads to the patient being put on several drugs. Although it is true that some ADHD youth are on multiple drugs, the WSJ is wrong to conclude that the medications for ADHD cause this to occur. That simply confuses correlation with causation, which only the most naïve scientist would do.
In science, this problem is called confounding. It means other factors (like how severe or complex a child’s condition is) explain the results, not just the thing we’re focused on (medication for ADHD).
The WSJ analyzed a database of prescriptions. They did not survey the prescribers who made the prescriptions of the patients who received them. So they cannot conclude that ADHD medication caused the later prescriptions, or that the later medications were unnecessary or inappropriate.
Other explanations are very likely. It has been well documented that youth with ADHD are at high risk for developing other disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance use. The kids in the WSJ database might have developed these disorders and needed several medications. A peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal would be expected to adjust for other diagnoses. If that is not possible, as it is in the case of the WSJ’s database, a journal would not allow the author to make strong conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Powerful Stories Don’t Always Mean Typical Stories
The article includes emotional accounts of children who seemed harmed by being put on multiple psychiatric drugs. Strong, emotional stories can make rare events feel common. They also frighten parents and patients, which might lead some to decline appropriate care.
These stories matter. They remind us that each data point is a real person. But these stories are the weakest form of data. They can raise important questions and lead scientists to design definitive studies, but we cannot use them to draw conclusions about the experiences of other patients. These stories serve as a warning about the importance of finding a qualified provider, not as against the use of multiple medications. That decision should be made by the parent or adult patient based on an informed discussion with the prescriber.
Many children and adults with ADHD benefit from multiple medications. The WSJ does not tell those stories, which creates an unbalanced and misleading presentation.
Newspapers frequently publish stories that send the message: “Beware! Doctors are practicing medicine in a way that will harm you and your family.” They then use case studies to prove their point. The title of the article is, itself, emotional clickbait designed to get more readers and advertising revenue. Don’t be confused by such journalistic trickery.
What Should We Conclude?
Here’s a balanced way to read the article. It is true that some patients are prescribed more than one medication for mental health problems. But the article does not tell us whether this prescribing practice is or is not warranted for most patients. I agree that the use of antipsychotic medications needs careful justification and close monitoring. I also agree that patients on multiple medications should be monitored closely to see if some of the medications can be eliminated. Many prescribers do exactly that, but the WSJ did not tell their stories.
It is not appropriate to conclude that ADHD medications typically cause combined pharmacotherapy or to suggest that combined pharmacotherapy is usually bad. The data presented by the WSJ does not adequately address these concerns. It does not prove that medications for ADHD cause dangerous medication cascades.
We have to remember that even when a journalist analyzes data, that is not the same as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
_logo%201.svg)
