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 24, 2025
Background:
Despite recommendations for combined pharmacological and behavioral treatment in childhood ADHD, caregivers may avoid these options due to concerns about side effects or the stigma that still surrounds stimulant medications. Alternatives like psychosocial interventions and environmental changes are limited by questionable effectiveness for many patients. Increasingly, patients and caregivers are seeking other therapies, such as neuromodulation – particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
tDCS seeks to enhance neurocognitive function by modulating cognitive control circuits with low-intensity scalp currents. There is also evidence that tDCS can induce neuroplasticity. However, results for ADHD symptom improvement in children and adolescents are inconsistent.
The Method:
To examine the evidence more rigorously, a Taiwanese research team conducted a systematic search focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested tDCS in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They included only studies that used sham-tDCS as a control condition – an essential design feature that prevents participants from knowing whether they received the active treatment, thereby controlling for placebo effects.
The Results:
Meta-analysis of five studies combining 141 participants found no improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. That held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex. There was no sign of publication bias, nor of variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the RCTs.
Meta-analysis of six studies totaling 171 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms, hyperactivity symptoms, or impulsivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. Again, this held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, and there was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Most of the RCTs also performed follow-ups roughly a month after treatment, on the theory that induced neuroplasticity could lead to later improvements.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs combining 118 participants found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. This held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 148 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. AS before, this was true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
The only positive results came from meta-analysis of the same five studies, which reported a medium effect size improvement in impulsivity symptoms at follow-up. Closer examination showed no improvement from stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex, but a large effect size improvement from stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex.
Interpretation:
It is important to note that the one positive result was from three RCTs combining only 90 children and adolescents, a small sample size. Moreover, when only one of sixteen combinations yields a positive outcome, that begins to look like p-hacking for a positive result.
In research, scientists use something called a “p-value” to determine if their findings are real or just due to chance. A p-value below 0.05 (or 5%) is considered “statistically significant,” meaning there's less than a 5% chance the result happened by pure luck.
When testing twenty outcomes by this standard, one would expect one to test positive by chance even if there is no underlying association. In this case, one in 16 comes awfully close to that.
To be sure, the research team straightforwardly reported all sixteen outcomes, but offered an arguably over-positive spin in their conclusion: “Our study only showed tDCS-associated impulsivity improvement in children/adolescents with ADHD during follow-ups and anode placement on the left PFC. ... our findings based on a limited number of available trials warrant further verification from large-scale clinical investigations.”
Chun-Bin Tunga, Shun-Chin Liang, Cheuk-Kwan Sun, Yu-Shian Cheng, and Kuo-Chuan Hung, “Behavioral outcomes after tDCS treatment during immediate post-intervention and follow-up periods in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized sham-controlled trials,” Journal of Psychiatric Research 191 (2025) 8-14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.09.008.
Centanafadine, which is currently under investigation as a treatment for ADHD, will be the first triple reuptake inhibitor for the disorder if it is approved by the FDA. It improves norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin levels. This new medication is not a stimulant, but due to the dopamine component, it has a stimulant-like effect in patients. In adults, two phase 3 trials and a year-long extension have shown sustained benefits and a tolerable safety profile, laying the groundwork for pediatric research.
Based on this study, improvement was already noticeable after the first week and held steady through week 6. The lower dose (164.4 mg) didn’t separate from placebo, reminding us that getting the dose right will be critical. The effect size was smaller than what is seen for stimulants but 50% of patients had excellent outcomes as indicated by reductions in the ADHD-RS of 50% or more.
Side effect patterns look familiar to anyone who prescribes ADHD medications; loss of appetite, nausea and headaches topped the list. About half of teens on the higher dose reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with a quarter of those on placebo. Severe reactions were rare but did include isolated liver enzyme spikes, rash, and a few reports of aggression or somnolence. For everyday practice, that translates to routine growth checks, a look at baseline liver function, and clear guidance to families about reporting rashes or mood changes promptly.
The researchers noted that the study had certain limitations, including limited generalizability to adolescents beyond North America, the exclusion of teacher ratings on the ADHD-RS-5 scale and the study’s short duration. They added that future studies should explore long-term treatment outcomes and efficacy compared with other ADHD treatments, as well as its effect on treating ADHD with comorbid conditions.
First, speed. Centanafadine separated from placebo within a week. In this regard, it might be closer to stimulants than to the multi-week ramp-up we expect from current non-stimulants. Second, it offers another option when stimulants are contraindicated or poorly tolerated, or when they raise diversion concerns. Its mechanism also makes it intriguing for patients who need both norepinephrine and dopamine coverage but prefer to avoid schedule II drugs. Because it also improves serotonergic transmission, it may be useful for some of ADHD’s comorbidities (see our new article for evidence about serotonin’s role in these disorders).
Keep in mind that centanafadine for ADHD is still investigational, so participation in clinical trials remains the only access route.
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 ..."
Noting that "despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS [repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation]and tDCS [transcranial direct current stimulation] are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD," and that a recent meta-analysis of ten tDCS studies found small but significant improvements in outcomes, but had several methodological shortcomings and did not include two studies reporting mostly null effects, a team of British neurologists performed a meta-analysis of all twelve sham-controlled, non-open-label, studies found in a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature.
Ten of the twelve randomized-controlled trials used anodal stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while the other two used anodal stimulation of the right inferior frontal cortex.
The trials explored several measures of cognition. The research team carried out a meta-analysis of all twelve trials, with a total of 232 participants, and found no significant improvement in attention scores from CDC, relative to sham stimulation. A second meta-analysis, of eleven trials with a total of 220 participants, assessed the efficacy of tDCS on improving inhibition scores, and again found no significant effect. A third meta-analysis, encompassing eight trials with a total of 124 participants, evaluated the efficacy of tDCS on improving processing speed scores, once again finding no significant effect.
The latter two meta-analyses approached the border of significance, prompting the authors to speculate that larger sample sizes could bring the results just over the threshold of significance. Even so, effect sizes would be small.
It is also possible that the trials focused on regions of the brain suboptimal for this objective, and thus the authors "cannot rule out the possibility that stimulation of other prefrontal regions (such as the right hemispheric inferior frontal cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or parietal regions), multiple session tDCS or tDCS in combination with cognitive training could improve clinically or cognitive functions in ADHD."
As to concerns about safety, on the other hand, "stimulation was well-tolerated overall."
The authors concluded that based on current evidence, tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex cannot yet be recommended as an alternative Neurotherapy for ADHD.
Background:
There are currently few long-term treatment options for adult ADHD. Psychostimulants can help reduce symptoms, but their benefits rely on availability, continued use, and are not easily tolerated by some. Cognitive-behavioral therapies have also proven to be helpful, but access is limited because they must be provided by trained specialists. These challenges highlight the need to explore alternative interventions that could provide cognitive and behavioral improvements with fewer side effects.
Exercise has shown potential as a nonclinical intervention for ADHD. Previous research indicates that physical activity can increase cortical volume, enhance brain activation, and boost connectivity in cognitive regions, as well as raise dopamine and norepinephrine levels – effects similar to psychostimulants. Research in children and teens with ADHD has found that both regular exercise programs and even single workout sessions can improve executive functions (mental skills like planning and self-control) and reduce core ADHD symptoms. But whether exercise helps adults with ADHD has remained an open question.
Study:
A Chinese sports medicine research team set out to answer this by reviewing all available peer-reviewed studies on exercise and adult ADHD. They found so few studies on regular exercise programs – only four total, and three of those were small pilot studies just testing whether the approach was feasible – that they couldn’t draw firm conclusions about long-term exercise interventions.
However, they were able to analyze four moderate-to-high-quality studies involving 152 adults with ADHD that tested single exercise sessions. The combined results showed moderate improvements in inhibitory control (the ability to resist impulses and stay focused). Adults not taking medication showed large improvements.
When they looked at four studies involving 170 adults, they found small but consistent improvements in core ADHD symptoms after single exercise sessions. There was little to no variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, and no sign of publication bias.
Results:
The team concluded, “Overall, these findings offer preliminary evidence on the potential role of exercise as a helpful strategy in the management of adult ADHD,” but cautioned that more well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy of both acute and chronic exercise interventions for adult ADHD, with particular emphasis placed on determining the best “prescription” for exercise – what type, how intense, and how often.
They also noted that most existing research has focused narrowly on attention and impulse control, while other important mental abilities like working memory and mental flexibility remain largely unexplored.
Take-Away:
The takeaway here is practical and accessible: you don't need a long-term fitness program to get a cognitive bump from exercise if you have ADHD. Even a single session appears to help — particularly with impulse control. While the research base is still thin and we don't yet know the ideal exercise "prescription," the risk-benefit calculation is hard to argue with. For adults with ADHD who can't access medication or therapy, or who simply want an additional tool, breaking a sweat may be worth building into the routine.
Background:
Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) means intentionally hurting yourself without trying to end your life. Common examples include cutting, scratching, or burning yourself. This behavior is most common in teenagers, affecting 13-20% of adolescents. It’s also called self-harm or deliberate self-injury.
Young people who struggle with managing emotions, act impulsively, or have mental health conditions like depression are more likely to self-harm.
Because ADHD involves impulsivity and often occurs alongside emotional difficulties, researchers have suspected a link between ADHD and self-injury. However, previous studies have tended to be small, unrepresentative, and inconsistent, making it hard to draw clear conclusions.
The Study:
Researchers combined results from 14 different studies involving nearly 30,000 people to get a clearer picture. They looked at children, teenagers, and adults with ADHD from various settings—including hospitals, community programs, and general population studies.
To be included, studies had to confirm ADHD diagnosis through professional evaluation or validated testing methods.
Key findings
Conclusion:
The researchers concluded that roughly one in four people with ADHD have engaged in non-suicidal self-harm. The findings suggest that ADHD and self-harm share overlapping vulnerabilities.
Overall, this meta-analysis strengthens evidence that people with ADHD face a significantly elevated risk of non-suicidal self-injury, likely reflecting overlapping challenges with impulsivity, emotional regulation, and co-occurring mental health conditions. Importantly, this does not mean self-harm is inevitable in ADHD. It does, however, highlight the need for early screening, supportive environments, and targeted mental-health care to help reduce risk and support healthier coping strategies.
Background:
While ADHD is generally linked to negative childhood outcomes, individual variability exists. Researchers have found that factors like cognition, emotion, parenting, and social interactions can help some adversity-exposed children develop better than expected. This variability has driven extensive resilience research, which now views resilience not as a single trait, but as a combination of biological, psychological, social, and ecological processes supporting adaptation.
The Study:
This meta-analysis sought to address several key research gaps. First, while many potential resilience factors have been identified, no previous meta-analysis has quantitatively synthesized evidence focused specifically on children with ADHD. Second, relatively little research has clarified how particular resilience factors relate to specific developmental outcomes. Third, there is currently no integrated conceptual model of resilience processes tailored to children and adolescents with ADHD.
To keep the analysis focused and clinically relevant, the authors examined psychosocial and ecological resilience factors only. Biological factors (such as genetics or cardiovascular health) and non-modifiable demographic characteristics (such as age and sex) were excluded, as they do not readily inform interventions. The analysis also focused strictly on outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD, excluding adult outcomes and those reported for parents or teachers. Only studies based on clinical ADHD diagnoses were included.
In total, 28 studies involving more than 11,600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies were rated as high quality and 13 as fair quality; none were rated low quality. However, the evidence base was relatively thin for many analyses. Of the 50 components examined, only one included five studies, six included four studies, ten included three studies, and most (33) were based on just two studies. While some components involved large samples, most did not, meaning the findings should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive.
Results:
Unsurprisingly, academic skills and cognitive functioning – specifically including working memory and intelligence – were strongly associated with better educational outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD. In contrast, social skills and proactive attitudes or behaviors showed no significant link to educational attainment.
Well-being outcomes showed a different pattern. Proactive attitudes and behaviors, cognitive functioning, and parental resources were associated with small-to-moderate improvements in well-being. Emotional regulation and positive parenting or attachment, however, were not significantly related to well-being in this analysis.
For relationship outcomes, peer relationships – especially close friendships – stood out as particularly important, showing strong associations with better relational functioning. Social skills and positive parenting or attachment were linked to moderate improvements, although positive parenting alone had no significant effect. This suggests that the observed benefit likely stemmed from parental warmth and secure parent–child attachment rather than parenting practices in isolation. Parental resources (such as parental social support) and school-based support (including student–teacher relationships) showed no significant association with relationship outcomes.
The study also examined behavioral symptoms. Externalizing symptoms refer to outward-directed behaviors that affect others or the environment, such as aggression, defiance, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and rule-breaking. Peer relationships were linked to a modest reduction in these behaviors, while positive relationships with adults were associated with a strong reduction. In contrast, disciplinary parenting – particularly harsh punishment – was strongly associated with increased externalizing symptoms.
Internalizing symptoms involve inward-directed distress, such as anxiety, depression, withdrawal, excessive worry, and unexplained physical complaints. Here again, positive relationships with adults were important, showing a moderate association with fewer internalizing symptoms. Emotional regulation was also linked to small-to-moderate improvements.
Conclusion:
Overall, the findings highlight that resilience factors tend to be closely tied to specific outcomes rather than broadly protective across domains. For example, emotional regulation was associated with lower levels of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms but showed no significant link to well-being, educational achievement, or relationship quality. This suggests that emotional regulation may play a particularly important role in protecting mental health in children with ADHD, rather than driving broader developmental gains – consistent with evidence that emotional dysregulation is a core difficulty in ADHD.
Similarly, academic skills, social competence, and prosocial behaviors were linked mainly to their most closely related outcomes. Cognitive functioning was associated with both educational and well-being outcomes, but its impact was much stronger in education and more modest for well-being. Together, these context-specific patterns underscore the importance of designing interventions that target particular resilience factors with strategies tailored to specific developmental goals, rather than assuming that any single factor will promote resilience across all areas of life.
Key takeaway: resilience is individual and resilience isn’t one trait; different types of support help different individuals, in different areas.
_logo%201.svg)
