Cited by 131Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Pilot Study of Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Open access

Abstract

Objective Trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), a minimal-risk noninvasive neuromodulation method, showed potential benefits for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in an unblinded open study. The present blinded sham-controlled trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of TNS for ADHD and potential changes in brain spectral power using resting-state quantitative electroencephalography.Method Sixty-two children 8 to 12 years old, with full-scale IQ of at least 85 and Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-diagnosed ADHD, were randomized to 4 weeks of nightly treatment with active or sham TNS, followed by 1 week without intervention. Assessments included weekly clinician-administered ADHD Rating Scales (ADHD-RS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales and quantitative electroencephalography at baseline and week 4.Results ADHD-RS total scores showed significant group-by-time interactions (F 1,228 = 8.12, p = .005; week 4 Cohen d = 0.5). CGI-Improvement scores also favored active treatment (χ 21,168 = 8.75, p = .003; number needed to treat = 3). Resting-state quantitative electroencephalography showed increased spectral power in the right frontal and frontal midline frequency bands with active TNS. Neither group had clinically meaningful adverse events.Conclusion This study demonstrates TNS efficacy for ADHD in a blinded sham-controlled trial, with estimated treatment effect size similar to non-stimulants. TNS is well tolerated and has minimal risk. Additional research should examine treatment response durability and potential impact on brain development with sustained use.Clinical trial registration information Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation for ADHD; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT02155608.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a 4-week double-blind, sham-controlled pilot, nightly trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) in 62 children aged 8–12 with ADHD improved clinician-rated ADHD-RS total scores versus sham (group-by-time F = 8.12, df = 1/228, p = .005; week 4 Cohen’s d = .50) and CGI-I (χ² = 8.75, df = 1/168, p = .003; NNT = 3). TNS was well tolerated with no serious adverse events, and qEEG showed increased right frontal and frontal midline spectral power with active treatment.

Key findings

  • ADHD-RS totals showed a significant group-by-time interaction (F = 8.12, df = 1/228, p = .005), with week 4 Cohen’s d = .50. CGI-I also favored active treatment (χ² = 8.75, df = 1/168, p = .003), NNT = 3; raw CGI-I improvement rates for active vs sham were 25% vs 13%, 34% vs 15%, 47% vs 12%, and 52% vs 14% at weeks 1–4.
  • Resting-state qEEG showed increased broadband power with active TNS and decreased power with sham in the right frontal region. Significant group-by-time effects occurred for right frontal F4 delta, theta, beta, and gamma bands and frontal midline Fz gamma, with trend-level effects for Fz delta, theta, and beta. Week 4 changes in F4 theta/beta and Fz gamma 1 correlated with ADHD-RS total and hyperactive/impulsive changes (r’s range −.34 to −.41).
  • After treatment discontinuation, ADHD-RS worsened in both groups from week 4 to week 5: active means 23.39 (SD 7.88) to 25.52 (7.84); sham 27.50 (8.08) to 29.11 (7.79). Time effect was significant (F = 6.23, df = 1/57, p = .02), with a trend for group differences (F = 4.18, df = 1/57, p = .05) but no group-by-time interaction (F = .12, df = 1/57, p = .73); week 5 Cohen’s d = .46.
  • No serious adverse events occurred and no participant withdrew for adverse events. Active TNS was associated with significant increases in weight and pulse versus sham, and side-effect ratings showed notable increases in fatigue, headache, and increased appetite with active TNS, and increased hyperactivity with sham.

Methods

  • Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot: 62 children aged 8–12 years with KSADS-diagnosed ADHD, full-scale IQ ≥ 85, baseline ADHD-RS ≥ 24, and CGI-S ≥ 4 were randomized 1:1 to active (n = 32) or sham (n = 30) TNS, stratified by low/high parent ARI scores. Treatment was nightly for 4 weeks, followed by 1 blinded week without intervention.
  • Outcomes included weekly clinician-administered ADHD-RS and CGI scales, parent/teacher behavioral ratings, cognitive tests, safety measures, and resting-state qEEG at baseline and week 4. qEEG data for 3 participants were excluded for movement artifact, leaving 56 participants (active n = 30; sham n = 26) for EEG analyses.
  • Analyses used SAS 9.4 general linear mixed models with group, time, and group-by-time predictors, subject-level random intercepts, and a piecewise linear time trend (time2 after week 1); categorical CGI-I was assessed by chi-square. Effect sizes used Cohen’s d and NNT, with uncorrected α = .05.

Limitations

  • The paper states the study assessed only acute 4-week response and does not inform whether additional improvement would accrue with ongoing treatment or whether benefits persist over time; it did not assess TNS as adjunctive therapy; it failed to support open-label executive functioning (BRIEF) and selected sleep (CSHQ) benefits, though mean ratings on those measures were subclinical; pulse increases were statistically significant but not clinically abnormal and may be outlier findings from a small sample; replication in additional patient groups is needed.
  • Evident from the text: this was a small pilot with uncorrected significance for exploratory outcomes, blinding was assessed only by parent questionnaire, qEEG analyses included 56 of 62 randomized participants, and the study does not address potential effects on brain development with sustained use.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.11.013

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 23 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 28 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 45
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
48 of 48
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Benefits of vagal nerve stimulation rely in part on the same brain connections as trigeminal nerve stimulation.

    “Assuming that benefits of vagal stimulation rely in part on the same brain connections, it was hypothesized that TNS similarly improve seizures and mood, but without costs and risks associated with surgical device implantation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This is the first blinded sham-controlled trial of TNS for ADHD or any pediatric condition.

    “This is the first blinded sham-controlled trial of TNS for ADHD or any pediatric condition.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Week 5 effect is below the paper's medium-effect cutoff

    Minor

    The paper defines .5 as the cutoff for a medium Cohen's d, but calls the week 5 value of .46 medium-sized.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 47 references

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Weaver, 2012, Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, J ECT, 28, 98

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–130 of 130

Metadata

Authors
McGough, J. J., Sturm, A., Cowen, J., Tung, K., Salgari, G. C., Leuchter, A. F., Cook, I. A., Sugar, C. A., & Loo, S. K.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
McGough, James J.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
58
Issue
4
Pages
403-411.e3
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914647410
Cited by
131
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH101282)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
trigeminal nerve stimulation, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, non-invasive neuromodulation, children, quantitative EEG, treatment efficacy, treatment safety
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Double-Blind Method, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Trigeminal Nerve, United States, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review