What would you like to find today?

Since 1989, South Korea has had a single-payer healthcare insurance system, the Korean National Health Insurance Service. This facilitates nationwide population studies.

A South Korean study team used the national health claims database to retroactively examine the relationship between birth weight and subsequent diagnosis of ADHD for all 2.36 million children born in the country between 2008 and 2012. After excluding children who had since died, who had missing birth weight records, missing income information, or who weighed under400 grams at birth, 2,143,652 children remained in the study cohort.

Gestational age at birth was not available, so could not be taken into consideration.

To reduce the impact of confounding factors, odds ratios were adjusted for sex, history of congenital or perinatal diseases, income, and birth year.

Children with more normal birth weights in the range of 2.5 to 4 kilograms were used as the reference group.

Children with birth weights greater than this reference group were found to be no more likely to develop ADHD than those in the reference group.

At the other end of the spectrum, children with birth weights under a kilogram were 2.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than those in the reference group.

That dropped to 1.7 times more likely for those with birth weights from 1 to 1.5 kilograms; 1.5 times more likely in the 1.5-to-2-kilogram range, and 1.4 times more likely in the 2-to-2.5-kilogram range. This dose-response curve, accelerating steeply with lower birth weights, points to a strong association.

For autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the association was even stronger. Again, there was no significant association with higher-than-normal birth weight. But children in the 2-to-2.5-kilogram range were 1.9 times as likely to be diagnosed with ASD; those in the 1.5-to-2 kilogram tranche over three times as likely; those in the 1 to 1.5-kilogram tranche five and halftime as likely, and those under 1 kilogram over ten times as likely.

The authors concluded, "In this national cohort, infants with birth weights of < 2.5 kg were associated with ADHD and ASD, regardless of perinatal history. Children born with LBW [low birth weight] need detailed clinical follow-up."

Neurofeedback, also known as EEG (electroencephalogram)biofeedback, is a treatment that seeks to alleviate symptoms of various neurological and mental health disorders, including ADHD. It does this through immediate feedback from a computer program that tracks a client's brainwave activity, then uses sound or visual signals to retrain these brain signals. This in principle enables patients to learn to regulate and improve their brain function and reduce symptoms.

An Iranian study team recently performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature. It identified seventeen randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of neurofeedback treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD that could be aggregated for meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of twelve RCTs with a combined total of 740 youths looked at parent ratings of changes in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, and separately of changes in inattention symptoms. In both instances, the net pooled effect centered on zero.

A meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a combined total of 787 youths examined teacher ratings. Once again, the pooled change hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms centered on zero. For inattention symptoms, the teacher ratings centered on a tiny improvement, but it did not approach statistical significance. The 95% confidence interval stretched well into negative territory.

There was no sign of publication bias. Between-study heterogeneity, on the other hand, was high, with some small sample size RCTs pointing to reduced symptoms, and other small sample size RCTs pointing to increased symptoms. However, the RCTs with the larger sample sizes clustered close around zero effect size.

The authors concluded,"The results provide preliminary evidence that neurofeedback treatment is not an efficacious clinical method for ADHD."

An international study team conducted the first meta-analysis of studies examining differences in time perception between persons with ADHD and normally developing controls. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature identified 55 studies that could be combined into various subgroups for meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of 25 studies with a combined 1,633 participants looking at time discrimination found a medium effect size deficit among persons with ADHD in the number of correct comparisons between the length of two signals. There was little between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.

Turning to time estimation, a meta-analysis of eight studies with a combined 1,024 participants found a small-to-medium effect size increase in absolute errors (i.e., the absolute value of deviation between the specified and the estimated time interval, representing the absolute amount of error regardless of its direction) among persons with ADHD, compared to controls. Again, there was little between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.

A meta-analysis of seven studies with combined 380 participants looked at differences in time production, in which they had to produce a previously specified time interval by pressing and holding a button. In this case, those with ADHD manifested a small effect size increase in absolute error relative to their normally developing counterparts. There was moderate between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.

Finally, a meta-analysis of 26 studies with combined 2,364 participants examined differences in time reproduction, in which they had to reproduce the duration of a previously presented stimulus by pressing and holding a button. Here, those with ADHD exhibited a medium effect size increase in absolute error. There was moderate between-study heterogeneity and no indication of publication bias.

An acknowledged limitation of these meta-analyses was the inability to assess the effects of pharmacological treatment. In addition, 84% of the studies did not report the ethnicity of participants.

The team concluded, "We found meta-analytic evidence of significant deficits in individuals with ADHD across all timing paradigms ... individuals with ADHD have difficulties to discriminate stimuli that vary from each other for only several milliseconds, and they are more variable in their time estimates of several seconds irrespective of the paradigm examined, which may both be driven by their lowered alertness levels."

They suggested that this might eventually become a criterion to help diagnose ADHD: "Our findings have possible clinical implications, albeit not currently directly applicable to the clinical practice. As timing has been proposed as an independent neuropsychological pathway to ADHD, timing tasks should be considered in the clinical assessment of ADHD to better characterize the clinical profile of the patient... To characterize further the phenotype of the patient during the diagnostic process that may deserve clinical attention, we suggest developing a tool based on the time estimation paradigm. The time estimation accuracy score not only represents an intuitive score reflecting faster internal clock mechanisms in individuals with ADHD, but the paradigm also shows high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, allowing for a reliable assessment of developmental or interventional changes in timing abilities related to developmental factors or external interventions."

A Chinese study team performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed journal literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of cognitive training as a treatment for youths with ADHD.

Seventeen RCTs with a combined total of 1,075 participants met standards for inclusion in a series of meta-analyses. Seven RCTs used waitlist controls, seven used placebo training, two used treatment-as-usual, and one used active knowledge training. Participants were unmediated in four RCTs, with varying proportions of medicated participants in the remaining thirteen.

A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs, with a combined 789 participants, assessed changes in inattention symptoms following treatment, as rated by parents or clinicians. It found a small-to-medium effect size improvement in symptoms of inattention. There was no indication of publication bias, but between-study heterogeneity was very high.

But that gain vanished altogether when combining only the six RCTs that were blinded, meaning the symptom evaluators had no idea which participants had received cognitive treatment and which participants had not. There was zero difference between the treatment and control groups. Significantly, between-study heterogeneity also diminished markedly, becoming low to moderate.

A second meta-analysis, of 15 RCTs with a combined 723 participants, assessed changes in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms following treatment, as rated by parents or clinicians. It found no significant difference between participants who received cognitive training and controls. There was no sign of publication bias, and between-study heterogeneity was moderate-to-high.

The three remaining meta-analyses looked for improvements in executive functions, using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).

A meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, with a combined 748 participants, found a small-to-medium effect size improvement in the global executive composite index of BRIEF, as evaluated by parents. There was no sign of publication bias, and between-study heterogeneity was moderate-to-high.

But that improvement again disappeared altogether when considering only the five RCTs that were blinded. Between-study heterogeneity also became insignificant.

A meta-analysis of 6 RCTs with 401 participants found no significant improvement in the behavioral regulation index of BRIEF. Heterogeneity was negligible.

Finally, a meta-analysis of 7 RCTs with 463 participants also found no significant improvement in the metacognition index of BRIEF. In this case, between-study heterogeneity was high.

While acknowledging that "when analyses were set in blinded measures, effect sizes were not statistically significant," the author nevertheless concluded, "In summary, multiple cognitive training alleviates the presentation of inattention and improves general executive function behaviors in children with ADHD." This suggests an underlying bias on the part of the study team in favor of treatment even when not supported by best (i.e., blinded) methodological practices.

A meta-analysis of eight studies with a combined total of over 396,000 persons with ADHD reported a twofold greater risk of premature death in persons with ADHD as compared with the general population. There was no significant difference in mortality between males and females with ADHD.

But when natural causes of death, primarily disease, were distinguished from unnatural causes, such as injuries and poisoning, virtually all the increased risk was attributable to the latter.

A meta-analysis of four studies with a combined total of over 394,000 participants with ADHD found no significant increase in natural mortality among persons with ADHD. This held for both males and females.

But a meta-analysis of ten studies with over 430,000 persons with ADHD found a nearly threefold increase in unnatural mortality (injuries, poisoning, etc.) in persons with ADHD. Among females (five studies, over 110,000 participants) the increase was threefold. Males with ADHD (five studies, over 310,000 participants) were 2.5 times more susceptible to premature death.

An important caution: in all of these meta-analyses, between-study heterogeneity was extreme, meaning there was little consistency from one study to the next. Moreover, no effort was made to evaluate the likelihood of publication bias.

The largest study, with over 275,000 participants with ADHD, found a negligible and only marginally significant 7% increased all-cause risk of death. It found no increase in natural causes of mortality, but a 50% increase in unnatural causes of premature mortality.

The authors described these results as "suggestive," but emphasized that "the evidence was judged as only low confidence," in line with "inconsistent" evidence from previous nationwide population studies: in Denmark, a twofold increase in all-cause mortality; in Sweden, a fourfold increase; but in Taiwan, a tiny 7% increase that was at the limit of statistical significance, once the data was fully adjusted for confounding factors.

That led the authors to suggest "that all relevant potential confounders should be accounted for" in "future studies."

Bipolar disorder is a severe mental illness that afflicts over one in fifty persons worldwide. About a quarter of those with bipolar disorder also has alcohol use disorder (AUD). This in turn complicates the treatment of their bipolar disorder. It exacerbates their symptoms, makes them more likely to be suicidal, and increases the risk of hospitalization.

More than one in five persons with bipolar disorder also have ADHD, which is likewise known to be correlated with AUD. To what extent does ADHD contribute to AUD in persons with comorbid bipolar disorder?

A European study team recently conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to address that question. The team identified eleven studies with a combined total of 2,734 participants that could be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis.

They found that persons with comorbid ADHD and bipolar disorder were two and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder than persons with bipolar disorder but no ADHD.

Between-study heterogeneity was negligible, and there was no sign of publication bias.

The authors concluded, "At least a portion of the high rates of AUD in BD may, thereby, be related to comorbid ADHD. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the nature of this relationship."