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.
Background:
One of the more persistent concerns among parents of children with ADHD is whether stimulant medications will stunt their child's growth. A large Israeli cohort study now offers some of the most rigorous reassurance to date, and its methodology sets it apart from earlier research.
The question has long been complicated by a more fundamental uncertainty: do growth differences in children with ADHD stem from the condition itself, from stimulant treatment, or from factors present before any medication is ever prescribed? Without a clear answer, clinicians and families have faced a genuine dilemma when weighing the benefits of stimulant therapy against potential long-term physical costs.
Most previous studies compounded this difficulty by comparing group-average heights, which ignores the crucial variable of genetic potential. A child who is short relative to the general population may simply have short parents. Failing to account for this introduces systematic bias and can make medications appear more harmful than they are.
The Study:
The Israeli research team addressed this directly. Using health records from a nationwide provider, they assembled a retrospective cohort of children born between 1995 and 2003, following them through 2023. This amount of time was long enough for all participants to have reached adult stature (defined as 17 or older for females, 19 or older for males). Their sample included 5,671 children with untreated ADHD, 11,846 who received stimulant treatment, and 47,258 non-ADHD controls. Children who took stimulants for only one to two months, or who had chronic medical conditions requiring long-term medication, were excluded to avoid confounding the results.
Crucially, adult height was evaluated not against population norms but against each individual's expected height, calculated from parental heights using the Tanner-Goldstein-Whitehouse method, a standard approach for estimating genetic height potential via mid-parental height.
When the researchers compared adult heights across the three groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA), they did find statistically significant differences. But statistical significance, particularly in studies with tens of thousands of participants, does not automatically translate into clinical significance. The effect sizes were consistently very small, and the absolute differences were under one centimeter, which is a margin considered clinically negligible.
Their conclusion is measured but clear: after accounting for genetic growth potential, neither an ADHD diagnosis nor stimulant treatment was associated with meaningful reductions in adult height. The findings, they argue, support prioritizing behavioral and functional outcomes when making treatment decisions, since the risk of clinically significant height loss appears to be minimal.
The Take-Away:
For families navigating ADHD treatment, the practical implication is significant: concerns about permanent growth suppression, while understandable, should not be the primary driver of whether or how long a child receives stimulant therapy.
Michal Gabbay, Uri Gabbay, and Doron Carmi, “The impact of ADHD and neurostimulant treatment on normalized height deviance after accounting for genetic height potential,” Pediatric Research (2026), published online, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-026-04929-1.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Noting that “the association between adult ADHD and dementia risk remains a topic of interest because of inconsistent results,” an Israeli study team tracked 109,218 members of a nonprofit Israeli health maintenance organization born between 1933 and 1952 who entered the cohort on January 1, 2003, without an ADHD or dementia diagnosis and were followed up to February 28, 2020.
Israeli law forbids nonprofit HMOs from turning anyone away based on demographic factors, health conditions, or medication needs, thereby limiting sample selection bias.
The estimated prevalence of dementia in this HMO, as diagnosed by geriatricians, neurologists, or psychiatrists, is 6.6%. This closely matches estimates in Western Europe (6.9%) and the United States (6.5%).
The team considered, and adjusted for, numerous covariates: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, depression, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, migraine, mild cognitive impairment, psychostimulants.
With these adjustments, individuals diagnosed with ADHD were almost three times as likely to be subsequently diagnosed with dementia as those without ADHD. Men with ADHD were two and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with dementia, whereas women with ADHD were over three times more likely, than non-ADHD peers.
More concerning still, persons with ADHD were 5.5 times more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with early onset dementia, as opposed to 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with late onset dementia.
On the other hand, the team found no significant difference in rates of dementia between individuals with ADHD who were being treated with stimulant medications and individuals without ADHD. Those with untreated ADHD had three times the rate of dementia. The team nevertheless cautioned, “Due to the underdiagnosis of dementia as well as bidirectional misdiagnosis, this association requires further study before causal inference is plausible.”
Conclusions and Relevance:
This study reinforces existing evidence that adult ADHD is associated with an increased risk of dementia. Notably, the increased risk was not observed in individuals receiving psychostimulant medication, however the mechanism behind this association is not clear.
These findings underscore the importance of reliable ADHD assessment and management in adulthood. They also highlight the need for further study into the link between stimulant medications and the decreased risk of dementia.
...
Struggling to get the care you need to manage your ADHD? Support The ADHD Evidence Project and get this step-by-step guide to getting the treatment you deserve: https://bit.ly/41gIQE9
Quality of life (QoL) is defined as a person’s satisfaction with their life, measured across several dimensions including psychological, social, health, biological, and economic well-being. For adults, these are usually self-reported. QoL for children and adolescents is usually reported by parents.
Medications for ADHD include stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) and non-stimulants (e.g., atomoxetine, clonidine, guanfacine, viloxazine). As QoL is related to ADHD symptoms’ severity, management of ADHD via medication could improve not only core symptoms but also QoL in people with ADHD.
Noting the absence of meta-analytic evidence on the effects of ADHD medications on QoL, an international research team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel or cross-over randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to estimate the effects of ADHD medication on QoL. They also performed secondary analyses to see if these effects differed in children and adolescents versus adults, as well as by class of medications, and if they were moderated by length of treatment.
Meta-analyses of four RCTs with a combined total of 950 participants with ADHD (45% adults) found a medium effect size improvement among those receiving amphetamines by comparison with those receiving placebo. There was no sign of publication bias, but there was wide variation (heterogeneity) in effect size estimated among the studies.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs with a combined total of 1,094 participants with ADHD (57% adults) found a small-to-medium effect size improvement among those receiving methylphenidate by comparison with those receiving placebo. Again, there was no sign of publication bias, but wide variation in effect sizes among the studies.
Due to lack of sufficient data, the team could not explore whether length of treatment affected the results, or if there were differences between children/adolescents and adults.
Finally, a meta-analysis of eleven RCTs with a combined total of 3,344 participants with ADHD (63% adults) likewise found a small effect size improvement among those taking atomoxetine compared with those receiving placebo. Once again, there was no sign of publication bias, but wide variation in effect sizes among the studies.
The team was able to establish that for atomoxetine treatment, length of intervention – the studies ranged from 6 to 24 weeks – had no significant moderating effect. Similarly, they found no significant differences in effect on children and adolescents versus adults.
A single RCT evaluating modafinil treatment in adults found no improvements at any dose, whereas a single RCT testing non-stimulant guanfacine reported a medium effect size improvement in QoL. Modafinil is not FDA approved for ADHD but is sometimes used as a last resort if other treatments fail.
The team concluded that the FDA approved medications for ADHD were significantly more efficacious than placebo in improving QoL in people with ADHD. The improvements in Q0L were, however, smaller than what has been found for improvements is the symptoms of ADHD (inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity). More work is needed to detect differences by age and length of treatment.
A landmark nationwide study from South Korea has uncovered a significant link between prenatal exposure to air pollution — specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — and an increased risk of ADHD in children.
While researchers have long suspected that air pollutants interfere with fetal brain development through inflammation and oxidative stress, this study is one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, following nearly 1.5 million births for up to 13 years.
Why South Korea?
South Korea provided a unique countrywide “laboratory” for this research due to two key infrastructure strengths:
Key Findings: The “Smoking Gun” of NO2
While the study looked at several pollutants, nitrogen dioxide — a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion in cars and power plants — emerged as the primary concern.
Pollutant
Association with ADHD Risk
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Strongest Link: Every 1-ppb (part-per-billion) increase in exposure linked to a 22% rise in risk.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Minimal Link: Only a slight 4% increase per ppb.
Ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO), & particulates
No significant association was found.
The scale of the NO2 risk is particularly striking. Over the typical range of exposure levels found in the study (an interquartile range of 13 ppb), the data suggest a threefold increase in ADHD risk for children in the highest-exposure groups compared to the lowest.
Accounting for Other Factors
To ensure the results weren’t skewed by other variables, the researchers controlled for a wide range of confounders including:
The authors emphasized the strong association between maternal nitrogen dioxide exposure and ADHD, while also noting the small but significant association with sulfur dioxide.
The Take-Away: A New Frontier for Public Health
Historically, air quality laws have been designed to protect our lungs and hearts. However, this study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the brain is likewise vulnerable.
In a commentary on the findings, expert George Ayoub argued that “neurodevelopment should be explicitly considered” when governments perform cost-benefit analyses on air quality regulation. My view is a bit different. The association is intriguing but the study does not establish cause and effect. Many statistically significant environmental risk associations for neurodevelopmental disorders have disappeared after controlling for maternal risk for ADHD. I hope this research team will do those analyses if feasible.
Executive functions (EFs) are the cognitive control systems that allow people to pursue goals, make decisions, and adapt to changing circumstances. Researchers generally break them into three overlapping capacities: working memory (holding and manipulating information in mind), inhibitory control (suppressing impulses and filtering out distractions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or mental frameworks). Strong EFs in childhood predict academic achievement, social competence, and long-term mental health; weaknesses in these areas that go unaddressed can persist into adulthood, undermining school performance, career prospects, and well-being.
The Background:
Interest in training these skills has grown rapidly, but most research has been conducted in Western settings. China presents a distinctive context. Collectivist values make group-based programs culturally natural, and parental investment in academic outcomes is high. Both of these factors should, in theory, work in an intervention’s favor. At the same time, tightly scheduled school days (sessions typically capped at 30 minutes or less) constrain what is actually deliverable. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested EF interventions with Chinese children, but until now, no one has pulled that evidence together systematically.
The Study:
A new network meta-analysis did exactly that. The researchers screened RCTs involving Chinese children aged 3–12, including both typically developing children and those showing subclinical signs of ADHD or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), for instance, siblings of children with an ASD diagnosis. Children who already carried a formal neurodevelopmental diagnosis were excluded. Fifty-two trials covering nearly 3,000 children met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into four categories:
The headline finding is that three of the four intervention types produced statistically significant improvements across all three EF domains. The exception was the hybrid physical-cognitive program, which did not reach significance for inhibitory control. Positive results across the board might sound encouraging until you look at the actual effect sizes.
The Results:
The actual effects were negligible. Every significant result fell well below what methodologists define as a “small” effect (a standardized mean difference, or SMD, of 0.2). The largest effect size in the entire analysis was an SMD of 0.097 (less than half that threshold). The authors summarize the interventions’ effects as “modest,” but that is generous phrasing for numbers that, in practical terms, amount to very little. The analysis also showed signs of publication bias, meaning that studies with null or negative results may not have been published, potentially inflating even these modest figures.
The Take-Away:
It is important to note that these results don’t necessarily mean that this is the last word on EF training. The results apply specifically to Chinese children working within the time constraints of Chinese school schedules, and they exclude children with diagnosed ADHD, a population for whom cognitive interventions sometimes show larger effects. Generalizing beyond those boundaries is unwarranted.
What the findings do suggest is that structured EF programs, as currently implemented in Chinese educational settings, are not delivering meaningful real-world benefits. Statistical significance, it is worth remembering, is not the same as practical significance, and the gap between the two is sharp here.
.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.
_logo%201.svg)
