Efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often show cognitive deficits. Given that some evidence has suggested transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a potential alternative or adjunct to psychostimulants, we sought to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review to evaluate the effects of tDCS on clinical symptoms and cognitive function among children and adolescents with ADHD, as well as to summarize associated adverse effects. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library up to May 7, 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents with ADHD who underwent tDCs therapy. The outcome included specific cognitive function assessments and clinical symptoms. RESULTS: = 388) were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that there was no significant improvement in clinical symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.012, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.235 to 0.259) and processing speed (SMD 0.063, 95% CI -0.145 to 0.27) compared with controls. For cognitive function, those who underwent tDCS showed significant improvement effects in attention (SMD 0.207, 95% CI 0.011 to 0.403) and inhibitory control (SMD 0.222, 95% CI 0.045 to 0.399). Subgroup analyses revealed that stimulation at the F3 site was more effective in improving attention, inhibitory control, and processing speed. A current intensity of 1 mA outperformed currents of 1.5 mA and 2 mA in enhancing inhibitory control, and the cathode was more effective than the anode. A single stimulation session appeared effective in improving attention and inhibitory control, although further studies are needed to confirm these findings. LIMITATIONS: Some subgroup analyses included few studies, lacked ADHD subtype delineation, and involved only single-dimensional analysis, which limited comprehensive conclusions. CONCLUSION: Overall, tDCS may improve the attention and inhibitory abilities of children and adolescents with ADHD, particularly with optimal stimulation parameters (F3 site, a current intensity of 1 mA, cathodal stimulation, and single-session stimulation). These findings suggest therapeutic potential but require larger clinical validation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".