What would you like to find today?

The Background:

Down syndrome (DS) is a genetic disorder resulting from an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is associated with intellectual disability. 

Three to five thousand children are born with Down syndrome each year. They have higher risks for conditions like hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, epilepsy, sensory issues, infections, and autoimmune diseases. Research on ADHD in patients with Down syndrome has been inconclusive. 

The Study:

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a household survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC. 

Due to the low prevalence of Down syndrome, a Chinese research team used NHIS records from 1997 to 2018 to analyze data from 214,300 children aged 3 to 17, to obtain a sufficiently large and nationally representative sample to investigate any potential association with ADHD. 

DS and ADHD were identified by asking, “Has a doctor or health professional ever diagnosed your child with Down syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)?” 

After adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, plus family highest education level, family income-to-poverty ratio, and geographic region, children and adolescents with Down syndrome had 70% greater odds of also having ADHD than children and adolescents without Down syndrome. There were no significant differences between males and females. 

The Take-Away:

The team concluded, “in a nationwide population-based study of U.S. children, we found that a Down syndrome diagnosis was associated with a higher prevalence of ASD and ADHD. Our findings highlight the necessity of conducting early and routine screenings for ASD and ADHD in children with Down syndrome within clinical settings to improve the effectiveness of interventions.” 

‍

An estimated 150 million children and adolescents live on the streets worldwide. In the U.S., roughly 1.5 million experience homelessness annually. Homelessness increases the risk of health issues, violence, early pregnancy, substance use, vaccine-preventable diseases, mental disorders, suicidal behavior, and early death. 

Rates of anxiety, major depression, conduct disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder are higher among school-age homeless children compared to their housed peers.  

However, there has been limited attention to ADHD, leading a French research team to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of its prevalence among homeless children and adolescents.  

The inclusion criteria required that participants be homeless, under 19 years of age at baseline, and have ADHD identified through a screening tool, self-report, or clinical assessment. 

Results:

Meta-analysis of 13 studies with a combined total of 2,878 individuals found indications of ADHD in almost one in four homeless children and adolescents. There was no sign of publication bias, but considerable variation in estimates across studies. 

The team found a dose-response effect. Meta-analysis of six studies with 1,334 participants under 12 years old reported 13% with indications of ADHD. Meta-analysis of five studies encompassing 991 individuals, 12 through 18 years old, found an ADHD rate of 43%. The ADHD rate among adolescents was 3.3 times greater than among children. 

There were no significant differences among countries. 

Moreover, limiting the meta-analysis to the seven studies with 1,538 participants that relied on clinical ADHD diagnoses, the gold standard,  resulted in an ADHD prevalence of 23%. 

The team concluded, “The review of 13 studies revealed that ADHD is common in homeless children and adolescents, suggesting that homelessness may contribute to the development or exacerbation of ADHD symptoms. Conversely, ADHD with other comorbidities may increase the likelihood of homelessness. Reintegrating these children and adolescents into care systems and ensuring access to public health interventions tailored for homeless families and youth is imperative for breaking the cycle of homelessness and improving long-term trajectories.” 

In other words, this review not only confirmed a strong link between homelessness and ADHD in children and youth, but also suggested a complex, cyclical relationship. Providing tailored health care and support for these vulnerable groups is crucial to interrupt this cycle and help improve their future outcomes.

‍

Background:

In Iceland, treatment with ADHD medication can only be initiated by psychiatrists or pediatricians with experience in diagnosing neurodevelopmental disorders. The diagnostic evaluation is most often carried out by a psychologist or psychiatrist, and must be confirmed by a psychiatrist. 

Some previous studies have suggested a small but significant increased risk of psychosis or mania associated with ADHD medication, while others have not. 

Iceland has a single-payer national healthcare insurance system that tracks virtually its entire population. An Icelandic research team accessed two administrative databases with nationwide coverage – the Icelandic Prescription Medicines Register and the Icelandic Hospital Discharge Register – to explore this relationship among all adults from 2010 through 2022. 

They included three categories of ADHD medications prescribed in Iceland: amphetamines, including dexamphetamine and lisdexamphetamine; methylphenidate; and atomoxetine. In Iceland, methylphenidate or atomoxetine must be prescribed and tried first before switching to lisdexamphetamine or dexamphetamine. 

Method:

Diagnoses of mania or psychosis recorded in electronic health records were used to identify individuals who were admitted to a psychiatric ward within one year of starting treatment with a specific class of ADHD medication. First-onset psychosis or mania was defined as the emergence of these conditions in individuals with no prior history, diagnosis, or hospitalization for psychosis or mania. 

A total of 16,125 adults began using an ADHD medication for the first time during the 13-year study period. 

Methylphenidate was the most used ADHD medication among those admitted for psychosis or mania (25 out of 61; 41%), reflecting its status as the most frequently prescribed stimulant during the study period. It was followed by amphetamines (21 out of 61; 34.4%) and atomoxetine (15 out of 61; 24.6%). 

Half of those hospitalized had previously received a diagnosis of substance use disorder. One in nine (11%) of those hospitalized acknowledged misuse of the type of ADHD medication they had been prescribed. 

Within a year of discharge, 42 out of the 61 patients (68.9%) had been prescribed an ADHD medication again. Among those, one in four (11 out of 42; 26%) were readmitted for psychosis or mania within the following year.  

The team noted, “It is concerning that most patients (68.9%) in our study resumed ADHD drug treatment within a year of hospital discharge … However, some studies have reported that the use of psychostimulants or atomoxetine to treat ADHD in individuals with psychotic disorders did not increase the risk of hospitalisation for psychosis if used concurrently with antipsychotic medication or that such use might even reduce this risk.”  

Findings: 

By comparison with the general population, adults initiating ADHD medications had eight times the relative risk of being admitted for psychosis or mania within the first year.  

The absolute risk was low: 0.38% overall for those initiating ADHD medication.  Adjusting for the general population risk of hospitalization for first-onset psychosis or mania, more than 300 patients would need to be initiated to ADHD medication to generate one hospital admission for psychosis or mania. 

The team conceded, “Confounders of real-life clinical settings, such as non-disclosed ADHD drug abuse or misuse or some degree of substance abuse, may have influenced our findings.” 

A further, unmentioned, limitation is that the team did not perform any of the usual adjustments for confounding variables, critically including co-occurring (comorbid) psychiatric disorders known to be common with ADHD, and likely to have a major effect on the relative risk of hospitalization. 

Given the very small increase in risk along with the methodological flaws, the team’s suggestion of a “potential causal role of ADHD drugs in the development of first-onset psychosis or mania” is unsubstantiated and speculative.  This is especially so given other studies suggesting no increased risk for psychosis due to these medications.  

In any event, causation cannot be established through observational studies.

‍

The Spanish National Health Survey tracks health care outcomes through representative samples of the Spanish population. 

A Spanish research team used survey data to explore the relationship between ADHD symptoms and dental and gum health in a representative sample of 3,402 Spanish children aged 6 to 14.

While previous studies have found associations between ADHD and poor dental health, they have not fully accounted for such important determinants of poor oral health as socioeconomic status, dental hygiene, or diet. 

The team therefore adjusted for sociodemographic factors, lifestyle variables, and oral hygiene behaviors. More specifically, they adjusted for sex, age, social class, parental education, exposure to tobacco smoke, consumption of sweets, consumption of sugary drinks, use of asthma or allergy medication, adequate oral hygiene behavior of children, adherence to regular dental visits, parental adequate oral hygiene behavior, and parental adherence to regular dental visits.

With those adjustments, children with ADHD symptoms had over twice the incidence of dental caries (cavities) as their counterparts without ADHD symptoms.

Tooth extractions and dental restorations also occurred with over 40% greater frequency in children with ADHD symptoms.

Gum bleeding, a sign of gum disease, was more than 60% more common among children with ADHD symptoms than among their non-ADHD peers.

Importantly, excluding children with daily sugar consumption, which left 1,693 children in the sample, made no difference in the outcome for cavities.

Excluding children with poor oral hygiene habits, which left 1,657 children in the sample, those with ADHD had 2.5-fold more caries than their non-ADHD counterparts.

Excluding children of low social class, which left 1,827 children in the sample, those with ADHD had 2.6-fold more caries than their non-ADHD counterparts.

Turning to a different method to address potential confounding factors, the team used nearest-neighbor propensity score matching to create virtual controls. This compared 461 children with ADHD to 461 carefully matched children without ADHD.

This time, children with ADHD symptoms had just under twice the incidence of cavities as their counterparts without ADHD symptoms, but 60% more tooth extractions and about 75% more dental restorations. The difference in gum bleeding became nonsignificant.

Noting that “The increased risk of caries was maintained when the analyses were restricted to middle/high social class families and children with low sugar intake, good oral hygiene behaviors and regular dental visits,” the team concluded, “Children with ADHD symptoms in Spain had worse oral health indicators than those without ADHD symptoms. Our results suggest that the association of ADHD symptoms with caries was independent of socioeconomic level, cariogenic diet, frequency of toothbrushing, and dental visits.”

‍

This new meta-analysis confirms what other meta-analysis have already shown, i.e, that there exists in the population an association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and ADHD in their offspring.  But reader beware, association does not mean causation.

The team identified 55 studies with quantitative data suitable for meta-analysis, including 11 case-control, 13 cross-sectional, and 31 retrospective/prospective cohort studies. 

Altogether they combined more than four million persons in countries spanning six continents, including the United States, Finland, Sweden, Brazil, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Spain, China, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, France, Sweden, South Korea, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Germany, Denmark, Egypt, and India.

Meta-analysis of all 55 studies found that offspring of mothers who smoked tobacco during pregnancy were about 70% more likely to develop ADHD than offspring of mothers who did not smoke during pregnancy.

Because variation in outcomes across studies was very high, the team performed subgroup analyses to explore potential sources of this heterogeneity. 

Comparing study designs, cohort studies reported roughly 50% greater odds of ADHD among children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy, whereas case-control studies reported roughly 70% greater odds and cross-sectional studies 2.3-fold greater odds.

Studies using the most reliable method of determining ADHD – clinical interview/professional diagnosis – reported 90% greater odds, contrasting with 66% through medical records/databases and 58% through self-report by child/parent or through teacher report.

Good quality studies reported roughly 75% greater odds. 

Studies with sample sizes above two thousand similarly found 70% greater odds.

There was no sign of publication bias using the more commonly used Egger’s test, but a marginal indication of publication bias using Begg’s test. Performing a standard correction reduced the effect size, indicating that the offspring of mothers who smoked tobacco during pregnancy were over 50% more likely to develop ADHD than the offspring of mothers who did not smoke during pregnancy.

The team concluded, “This systematic review and meta-analysis of 55 studies, encompassing over four million participants, provides compelling evidence that maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy significantly increases the odds of ADHD in children … These findings underscore the critical need for public health interventions aimed at reducing tobacco smoking during pregnancy.”

However, we disagree with this conclusion; The authors ignore substantial evidence showing that maternal smoking during pregnancy is confounded by maternal ADHD. These mothers transmit ADHD via genetics, not via their smoking. This study should be seen not as "...[further evidence that smoking during pregnancy causes ADHD.] ", but as a lesson in how easy it can be to see correlation as causation.

‍

‍

------

Struggling with side effects or not seeing improvement in your day-to-day life? Dive into a step-by-step journey that starts with the basics of screening and diagnosis, detailing the clinical criteria healthcare professionals use so you can be certain you receive an accurate evaluation. This isn’t just another ADHD guide—it’s your toolkit for getting the care you deserve. This is the kind of care that doesn’t just patch up symptoms but helps you unlock your potential and build the life you want. Whether you’ve just been diagnosed or you’ve been living with ADHD for years, this booklet is here to empower you to take control of your healthcare journey.

Proceeds from the sale of this book are used to support www.ADHDevidence.org.

Get the guide now– Navigating ADHD Care: A Practical Guide for Adults

‍

Study Background:

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) involve structured interactions with animals, designed and carried out by mental health teams assisted by trained human–animal professionals, to achieve specific therapeutic or educational goals. While a wide variety of animals may be used, horses and dogs tend to predominate. These interventions often involve physical contact, imitation, and play aimed at reducing stress and generating affection. Previous research has suggested that AAI to those with a range of developmental and mental health conditions.

Just how effective are they for treating ADHD in children and adolescents? Recent years have seen an increase in studies into AAIs for children with ADHD, but previous systematic reviews have not included quantitative meta-analysis to evaluate efficacy.

‍

The Study:

A Chinese study team based in Nanjing set out to remedy that with a systematic search of the peer-reviewed published medical literature aimed at performing meta-analyses of efficacy.

The team limited its search to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pre–post single-group studies involving children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD.

Meta-analysis of five studies with a combined total of 95 participants reported no significant effect of AAIs on ADHD symptom severity. There was negligible variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the studies.

Similarly, meta-analysis of the six studies encompassing 323 individuals found no significant improvements in social behavior. There was no heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias. Breaking that down into subcategories of social interaction (4 studies, 190 persons), social skill (3 studies, 53 persons), and problem behavior (4 studies, 80 participants) made no difference.

Likewise, meta-analysis of the three studies encompassing 61 individuals found no significant improvements in emotional control. Again, there was no heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.

Three studies combining 56 participants reported no significant reductions in anxiety and depression, again with no heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.

However, meta-analyses of five studies encompassing 194 individuals found a medium effect size association between AAIs and declines in attention problems, and a medium-to-large effect size improvement in learning and cognition. Heterogeneity was negligible to low.

Finally, meta-analysis of three studies combining 95 participants reported a large effect size improvement in motor proficiency, with moderate heterogeneity.

‍

The Conclusion:

The team concluded, “As an ADHD management strategy complementary to gold-standard approaches, such as medication or multimodal interventions, AAIs did not appear to be more effective in improving the majority of core ADHD outcomes in children. Future studies should incorporate rigorous study designs with large sample sizes and a standard protocol to achieve more valid and reliable conclusions.”

‍

A recent Finnish study offers important insights into how symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) in adolescence can shape academic performance, and even influence educational outcomes well into adulthood.  Children and teens with ODD often show a pattern of angry, irritable moods, arguing with adults, and defying rules or requests. They may lose their temper easily, be quick to blame others for mistakes, and deliberately annoy people. 

The researchers followed participants from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort of 1986, a large, population-based study. They looked at over 6,000 teens whose parents reported symptoms of ADHD and ODD when the children were 15–16 years old. The team then tracked their academic performance at age 16 and their highest level of education by age 32.

ADHD, ODD, and Academic Performance

ADHD is well-known for affecting school performance, often linked to difficulties with attention, impulse control, and executive functioning. ODD, characterized by patterns of irritability, defiance, and hostility toward authority figures, is less studied in this context, especially when it appears without ADHD.

The study found that both disorders, whether occurring separately or in combination, were associated with poorer grades at age 16. However, teens with ADHD symptoms performed worse than those with only ODD symptoms. Interestingly, students with both ADHD and ODD symptoms had the most pronounced academic struggles, but their performance didn’t significantly differ from the ADHD-only group at that age.

Long-Term Educational Impact

By age 32, the effects were even more striking. Participants with both ADHD and ODD symptoms were the least likely to attend or graduate from higher education institutions. Only about 10% of them reached that level, compared to over 40% of those without these symptoms.

Even after accounting for other influences, such as parental education, family structure, and additional psychiatric conditions, the findings held. This suggests that the combination of ADHD and ODD symptoms in adolescence may uniquely disrupt the educational path.

For adolescent girls with ODD symptoms, the impact was particularly notable: they were significantly more likely to complete only the mandatory nine years of schooling.

Why This Matters

These results underscore the lasting effects that behavioral and emotional challenges in adolescence can have. While schools often focus on immediate academic outcomes, this study highlights the importance of early identification and support, not just for ADHD but for ODD as well.

Parents and educators play a crucial role in shaping future outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD. Recognizing early signs of attention problems, emotional dysregulation, or defiance—and responding with appropriate interventions—could help redirect educational trajectories and open up opportunities down the line.

In short, it’s not just about managing classroom behavior. It’s about supporting long-term potential. When ADHD and ODD symptoms show up in adolescence, they don’t just make school harder—they can limit a student’s entire educational future. Early support and understanding can make a lasting difference.

‍

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.

‍

Some of the Good Ideas in the MAHA Report:

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.

‍

What MAHA Says About ADHD:

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.

✔️ Accurate: ADHD diagnoses are increasing.

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.

❌ Misleading: ADHD is caused by processed food, screen time, or chemical exposures.

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.

‍

How the MAHA Report Could Still Help People with ADHD:

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.

‍

The United Kingdom has a National Health Service (NHS) that encompasses virtually its entire population, with free access. The NHS records facilitate conducting nationwide studies.

‍

The Study

Using electronic health records from 794 primary care practices (roughly one in ten UK practices), largely representative of the UK population, a research team used mortality data to explore the life expectancy of adults diagnosed with ADHD compared with adults not diagnosed with ADHD.

For each adult diagnosed with ADHD, the team sampled ten controls matched by age, sex, and primary care practice. They identified 30,039 individuals with an ADHD diagnosis in their electronic health records and matched them with 300,390 without an ADHD diagnosis.

The team also gathered data on socioeconomic deprivation, diabetes, elevated cholesterol, hardening of the coronary arteries, high blood pressure, chronic respiratory disease, epilepsy, anxiety, depression, severe mental illness, self-harm/suicide, autism, intellectual disability, personality disorder, current smoking, and potentially harmful alcohol use. All these conditions examined at baseline were more common among participants with ADHD than comparison participants.

Both men and women with ADHD were about twice as likely to die during follow-up as Those without ADHD. A diagnosis of ADHD was associated with a 6.8-year reduction of life expectancy in males and an 8.6-year reduction of life expectancy in females.

‍

Conclusion

The authors wrote, “We believe that this is unlikely to be because of ADHD itself and likely caused by modifiable factors such as smoking, unmet mental and physical health support, and unmet treatment needs. The findings illustrate an important inequity that demands urgent attention.”

They also noted, “…we did not adjust for socioeconomic status (SES), as we believe that SES is best understood as part of the causal pathway between ADHD and premature mortality (i.e. SES is a mediator).” These results confirm other studies which also document that those with ADHD have a decreased life expectancy, primarily due to accidents and suicide. 

‍

‍

Background

A meta-analysis examined whether noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques could help reduce core symptoms of ADHD and improve cognitive function. NIBS refers to techniques that stimulate brain activity using low electrical or magnetic currents applied from outside the head. They studied transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), while newer methods like tRNS (random noise) and tACS (alternating current) lacked enough studies to be included in the analysis.

Methods

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—considered the gold standard in clinical research—were included in the review. For tDCS, the results were promising:

-A meta-analysis of 12 studies (582 participants) showed small but statistically significant improvements in inhibitory control (the ability to stop or delay responses).

-Nine studies (390 participants) showed small-to-medium improvements in working memory.

-Two smaller studies (94 participants) hinted at improvement in cognitive flexibility, but the results were not strong enough to be considered reliable.

-Seven studies (277 participants) found medium-to-large improvements in linattention, though results varied significantly between studies.

 Hyperactivity and impulsivity showed some improvement, but again, the number of studies was too small to draw firm conclusions.

 For rTMS, however, the results were not as encouraging. A meta-analysis of three studies (137 participants) found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms.

Conclusion

While the results suggest that tDCS may offer some benefit for executive functions and attention in people with ADHD—especially when targeting specific brain areas like the F3/F4 regions (roughly over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex)—the authors emphasize the need for further research. Most studies didn’t include long-term follow-up, and there’s still a lack of consistency in how stimulation is applied across studies.  Moreover, even when positive findings emerged for executive functions is not clear how these translate into changes that are meaningful for the patient.

Importantly, this study doesn’t suggest that NIBS should replace standard treatments. Although the paper highlights challenges with medication adherence and side effects, ADHD medications and behavior therapies remain the most well-established and effective treatments for most patients. The improvements seen with NIBS so far are relatively small and preliminary in comparison.

Instead, the findings support the idea that NIBS could one day serve as a complementary tool—especially for individuals who don’t respond well to existing treatments. But until more rigorous and long-term studies are done, NIBS should be viewed as an experimental approach, not a substitute.

‍