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 21, 2025
Children and adolescents with ADHD tend to be less active and more sedentary than their typically developing peers. This is concerning, since physical activity benefits mental, physical, and social development. For youth with ADHD, being active can improve symptoms like inattention, working memory, and inhibitory control.
A major barrier to physical activity for children and adolescents with ADHD is limited motor competence. This stems from challenges in developing basic motor skills and more complex abilities needed for sports and advanced movements.
Difficulties in developing fundamental movement skills – such as locomotor (running, jumping), object-control (throwing, catching), and stability skills (balancing, turning) – can reduce motor competence and limit physical activity. These basic movements are learned and refined with practice and age, not innate abilities.
To date, research on the link between ADHD and motor competence has remained inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis by a Spanish research team therefore aimed to determine whether children and adolescents with ADHD differ in motor competence from those with typical development (TD).
Studies had to include children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They had to involve a full motor assessment battery, not just one test, and present motor competence data for both ADHD and TD groups.
The team excluded studies involving participants with other neurodevelopmental disorders or cognitive impairments, unless separate data for the ADHD subgroup were reported.
Meta-analysis of six studies combining 323 children and adolescents found that typically developing individuals were twelve times more likely to score in the 5th percentile of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children as their peers diagnosed with ADHD. They were also three times more likely to score in the 15th percentile (five studies, 289 participants). Results were consistent across the studies (low heterogeneity). All included studies were randomized.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 198 participants using the Test of Gross Motor Development reported significant deficits in both locomotor skills and object control skills among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD relative to their typically developing peers. In this case, however, results were inconsistent across studies (very high heterogeneity), and one of the studies was unrandomized. Because the team published only unstandardized mean differences, there was no indication of effect sizes.
Meta-analysis of two studies encompassing 164 participants using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency similarly yielded significant deficits among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD relative to their typically developing peers, but in this case with low heterogeneity. Notably, one of the two studies was not randomized.
Moreover, the team made no assessment of publication bias.
The team concluded, “The findings of this review indicate that children and adolescents with ADHD show significantly lower levels of motor competence compared to their TD peers. This trend was evident across a range of validated assessment tools, including the MABC, BOT, TGMD, and other standardized test batteries. Future research should aim to reduce methodological heterogeneity and further investigate the influence of factors such as ADHD subtypes and comorbid conditions on motor development trajectories.”
However, without a publication bias assessment, reliance on unrandomized studies in two of the tests, no indication of effect size in the same two tests, and small sample sizes, these results are at best suggestive, and will require further research to confirm.
Nerea Blanco-Martínez, Daniel González-Devesa, Carlos Ayán-Pérez, and José Carlos Diz-Gómez, “Differences in Motor Competence Between Children and Adolescents With and Without ADHD: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2025), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07033-1.
Computerized cognitive training (CCT) uses computers to try to strengthen cognitive skills and processes, reduce ADHD symptoms, and improve executive functioning. Executive functions are cognitive processes and mental skills that help individuals plan, monitor, and successfully execute their goals.
CCT programs target one or more cognitive processes such as motor inhibition, interference inhibition, sustained attention, and working memory. They ramp up task difficulty as performance improves. The goal is to harness the brain’s inherent adaptability (neuroplasticity) to boost performance.
A European study team that previously probed the efficacy of CCT through meta-analysis had been unable to provide a robust estimate of effect size due to an insufficient number of high-quality trials with probably blinded outcomes. Noting that “there have been a considerable number of new RCTs [randomized controlled trials] published, many with larger samples, well-controlled designs and blinded outcomes,” the team performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
They included RCTs with participants of any age who either had a clinical diagnosis of ADHD or were above cut-off on validated ADHD rating scales. RCTs had to have been peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, and to have reported a validated outcome measure of ADHD symptoms, neuropsychological processes, and/or academic outcomes.
Fourteen RCTs with a combined total of 631 participants had probably blinded outcomes. Meta-analysis of these studies yielded no significant effect on either overall ADHD symptoms or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms. There was a marginally significant reduction in inattention symptoms, but the effect size was small. Between-study variation (heterogeneity) was negligible and there was no sign of publication bias.
Regarding academic outcomes, meta-analyses revealed no gain in arithmetic ability or reading fluency. There was a small but not statistically significant improvement in reading comprehension. Heterogeneity was minimal, with no indication of publication bias.
With two related exceptions, meta-analyses of RCTs measuring executive functions likewise reported no significant improvements in attention, interference inhibition (initial stage in controlling impulsive behavior), motor inhibition (follow-up stage in controlling impulsive behavior), non-verbal reasoning, processing speed, and set shifting (the ability to unconsciously shift attention between one task and another).
The exceptions were for working memory tasks. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs with a combined 753 participants reported a highly significant small-to-medium effect size improvement in verbal working memory. A separate meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a total of 441 participants similarly reported a highly significant improvement in visuospatial working memory, this time with medium effect size.
The team concluded, “There was no empirical support for the use of CCT as a stand-alone intervention for ADHD symptoms based on the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs conducted to date. Small effects, of likely limited clinical importance, on inattention symptoms were found – but these were limited to the setting in which the intervention was delivered. Robust evidence of small- to-moderate improvements in visual-spatial and verbal STM/WM tasks did not transfer to other domains of executive functions or academic outcomes.”
ADHD treatment usually involves a combination of medication and behavioral therapy. However, medication can cause side effects, adherence problems, and resistance from patients or caregivers.
Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on ADHD. With little research specifically examining game-based interventions for children and adolescents with ADHD or conducting meta-analyses to quantify their treatment effectiveness, a Korean study team performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to do just that.
The Study:
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. The team excluded RCTs that included participants with psychiatric conditions other than ADHD.
Eight studies met these standards. Four had a high risk of bias.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs with a combined total of 481 participants reported no significant improvements in either working memory or inhibition from game-based digital interventions relative to controls.
Likewise, meta-analysis of three RCTs encompassing 160 children and adolescents found no significant improvement in shifting tasks relative to controls.
And meta-analysis of two RCTs combining 131 participants reported no significant gains in initiating, planning, organizing, and monitoring abilities, nor in emotional control.
The only positive results were from two RCTs with only 90 total participants that indicated some improvement in visuospatial short-term memory and visuospatial working memory.
There was no indication of effect size, because the team used mean differences instead of standardized mean differences.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “The meta-analysis revealed that game-based interventions significantly improved cognitive functions: (a) visuospatial short-term memory … and (b) visuospatial working memory … However, effects on behavioral aspects such as inhibition and monitoring … were not statistically significant, suggesting limited behavioral improvement following the interventions.”
Simply put, the current evidence does not support the effectiveness of game-based interventions in improving behavioral symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents. The only positive results were from two studies with a small combined sample size, which does not qualify as a genuine meta-analysis. All the other meta-analyses performed with larger sample sizes reported no benefits.
Youths with ADHD are known to be more prone to language problems when compared with typically developing peers. To what extent does that affect their ability to share a narrative with others?
A Danish research team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed medical literature to explore this question. They stressed that this ability is important because "a narrative is a genre of discourse - a form of social communication used to derive meaning from experiences and to construct a shared understanding of events. In other words, it is the fundamental ability of orally producing a coherent story." They focused on the production of narratives rather than comprehension.
Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants. They had to compare aspects of oral narrative production in children and adolescents with either a formal ADHD diagnosis or a score above a clinical cut-off on a validated ADHD rating scale to a control group of typically developing youths. Youths with confirmed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or language impairment diagnoses were excluded. There were no constraints on IQ.
The team found sixteen studies with a combined total of 1,015 youths that met these criteria and were suitable for meta-analysis.
They examined seven aspects of oral narrative production:
· Coherence: A story structure that is logical and easy to follow in cause and sequence. There is a clear beginning, middle, and end. There are goals, attempts, and outcomes. A meta-analysis of nine studies with a combined total of 750 participants found youths with ADHD less coherent than their typically developing peers, with a medium effect size. There was virtually no between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
· Cohesion: This ensures referencing of events and characters in a manner that enables the listener to grasp how characters, events, and ideas in a story are related. Ambiguous or contradictory references get in the way of this. A meta-analysis of eight studies with a combined total of 501 participants found youths with ADHD showed less cohesion than their typically developing peers, with a medium effect size. Again, with virtually no between-study heterogeneity, and no sign of publication bias.
· Disruptions: These can be sequence errors, misinterpretations, embellishments, or confabulations - fabricating imaginary experiences as compensation for loss of memory. A meta-analysis of six studies with 389 participants found youths with ADHD had more disruptions than their typically developing peers, with a small-to-medium effect size. There was virtually no between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
· Fluency: Best explained in terms of errors that interfere with this quality, such as false starts, repeating words or sentences, and abandoning sentences without completing them. A meta-analysis of four studies with 220 participants found no difference in fluency between youths with ADHD and their typically developing peers.
· Production: This is a measure of output -overall length of the story, number of sentences, number of words. After adjusting for evidence of publication bias, a meta-analysis of twelve studies with 645 participants found no difference here.
· Syntactic complexity: This includes the extent of vocabulary and the use of proper grammar. A meta-analysis of six studies with 272 participants found youths with ADHD displayed less syntactic complexity than their typically developing peers, with a small-to-medium effect size. There was virtually no between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bi
· Internal state language: References to perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. There were only two studies with 130 participants, so no meta-analysis was performed.
The authors concluded, "the results from the current meta-analysis suggest that children with ADHD have impairments in their narrative language. In particular, children with ADHD produce narratives that are less coherent, less cohesive, less syntactically complex, and include more disruptive errors than typically developing children do."
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
For many ADHD patients, getting properly diagnosed and starting meds is only half the battle. The next step is figuring out the exact right dose. Historically, clinical guidelines have provided scant guidance on this critical step. This lack of direction can inadvertently foster two extremes in clinical practice: therapeutic inertia (settling for a subtherapeutic dose that leaves symptoms undertreated) or uncritical escalation (driving doses higher and higher beyond licensed limits without meaningful benefit).
To clear up this pharmacological gray area, an international team of researchers published the first comprehensive dose-effect network meta-analysis of ADHD medications in The Lancet Psychiatry. By pulling together a massive vault of clinical trial data, they mapped out exactly how efficacy and tolerability shift as doses increase.
Traditional meta-analyses evaluate head-to-head, pairwise data, comparing one drug at a specific dose directly against a placebo. However, this study utilized an advanced Bayesian hierarchical network model using restricted cubic splines.
This mathematical framework allowed the researchers to combine both direct trial data and indirect evidence simultaneously across 113 double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, the study evaluated data from 14,138 children/adolescents and 11,016 adults. By standardizing various formulations into basic equivalents (e.g., converting amphetamines to dextroamphetamine equivalents), they created a clear, unified map of dose ranges.
The study yielded distinct dose-response curves depending on the patient's age and the specific medication class. Rather than a linear trend in which "more medicine equals more benefit," most treatments reach a clear statistical plateau or ceiling.
For Children and Adolescents (under 18)
In the pediatric population, medications hit clear peak efficacy boundaries:
For both amphetamines and guanfacine, escalating the dosage past these points resulted in U-shaped curves, meaning further dose hikes yielded diminishing group-level symptom reduction.
For Adults (18 and older)
Adult profiles showed slightly different trajectories:
The ultimate goal of this landmark analysis is to guide shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and families. The results send a dual message to the medical community:
A medication's true efficacy hinges on its tolerability, typically measured by how often patients discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. For amphetamines, this dropout risk scales linearly with dosage, notably exceeding placebo in children above 25 mg/day and becoming prominent in adults past 50 mg/day. In contrast, methylphenidate shows no clear dose-dependent dropout risk in pediatric patients, whereas adults face a steep risk curve: increasing the dose from 60 mg/day to 90 mg/day raises the dropout risk from 7.3% to 10.0% for only modest symptom relief. Finally, youth taking guanfacine experience a sharp climb in discontinuation risks, reaching a 9.8% median risk at 4 mg/day before data limitations obscure further trends.
The authors strongly emphasize that these findings represent group averages. Because individual metabolism, genetics, and comorbidities vary widely, some specific patients may legitimately require and tolerate higher off-label doses. However, if an unusually high dose is needed, the study suggests it should prompt a careful clinical pause, either to reassess for co-occurring conditions (like anxiety, autism, or sleep disorders) or to manage realistic expectations regarding what the medication can achieve.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
_logo%201.svg)
