Michelle Tivadar1,2†
Matej Stuhec- 1University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- 2Lekarna Novak, Novo mesto, Slovenia
- 3Pomurske lekarne, Murska Sobota, Slovenia
- 4Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine Maribor, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
- 5Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Ormoz Psychiatric Hospital, Ormoz, Slovenia
Introduction: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting an estimated 5–7% of children and adolescents and 2–5% of adults. However, prevalence rates in published studies vary widely, largely due to methodological differences. High-quality, accurate, prevalence data are essential for clinical decision-making and policymaking. However, these data have not been consistently documented in previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
Aim: To assess the methodological quality of studies reporting ADHD prevalence using the relevant critical appraisal tool.
Methods: Our previously published systematic review identified 103 studies reporting clinically confirmed ADHD prevalence. The studies were grouped by type and age of subjects, and 101 studies were evaluated for risk of bias using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool modelled on the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2) method.
Results: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was found to be the most suitable for evaluating prevalence studies. Of the studies reviewed, 62 (61.4%) were at high risk of bias, and only seven (6.9%) had a low risk. Although one- and two-stage clinical study designs are of a higher quality, they are still often highly susceptible to bias.
Conclusion: The methodological quality of most ADHD prevalence studies is low. Systematic reviews must include critical appraisal to ensure the reliability of synthesised data. Accurate prevalence estimates are urgently needed in order to improve our understanding of the disease burden and enhance patient management.
1 Introduction
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by developmentally inappropriate levels of inattention, hyperactivity, and/or impulsivity (1–3). Although ADHD is commonly diagnosed in childhood, it often continues into adolescence and adulthood, and can persist throughout a person’s life (2, 4, 5). According to the World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement, which provided 208 empirically supported statements about the disorder, ADHD prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 5.9% to 14%, and from 0.2% to 2.8% in adults (5, 6).
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have explored the global prevalence of ADHD, particularly among children and adolescents. Reported estimates have varied widely – from as low as 1% to nearly 20% in school-age populations (7). These substantial variations are primarily attributable to differences in methodological procedures, including diagnostic criteria, study design, sampling strategies, and geographic and cultural contexts (5, 8–10).
A further source of heterogeneity in ADHD prevalence studies lies in the approach to diagnosis and study design. Prevalence estimates may be based either on clinical diagnoses, where a qualified professional (e.g. a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other healthcare provider) formally confirms the disorder, or on non-clinical assessments, such as self- or parent-reported questionnaires. Additionally, studies vary in whether they use registry and administrative data (e.g., medical records or national health databases) or survey-based methods (e.g. asking participants if they have ever been told by a doctor that they have ADHD). These differences affect the validity and comparability of prevalence estimates.
Reliable prevalence estimates are essential for health-related planning, resource allocation, and evidence-based policymaking (11). Nevertheless, the credibility of these reviews depends significantly on the methodological quality of the included studies and the transparency of risk of bias assessment (11, 12). Poor study design and inadequate reporting can introduce bias into the findings and lead to inaccurate conclusions, thereby undermining the evidence base (12).
Upon reviewing the literature, we observed that many systematic reviews and meta-analyses on ADHD prevalence did not consistently report on the quality of the included studies or provide a critical appraisal. Furthermore, in certain instances, risk of bias was assessed using methodologically inappropriate approaches (e.g., utilizing STROBE as a quality assessment instrument rather than a reporting guideline). A significant proportion of systematic reviews on global ADHD prevalence have not evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies, which limits the comparability of the results and contributes to the substantial heterogeneity in prevalence estimates. This inconsistency impairs the comparability of findings across reviews and may contribute to the substantial heterogeneity observed in prevalence estimates. Key sources of heterogeneity include differences in diagnostic frameworks (e.g., DSM vs. ICD), age groups, geographic regions, sampling methods, and response rates. A summary of the systematic reviews and the quality assessment tools they used is provided in the Supplementary Material (see Supplementary Table S1). Most older reviews – particularly those published before 2015 – did not apply formal risk-of-bias assessment tools. Early reviews such as those by Scahill et al. (13), Polanczyk et al. (2007 and 2014) (8, 9), Simon et al. (14), Willcutt et al. (15), and Catalá-López et al. (16), either did not assess quality or only addressed it briefly in the limitations discussion.
In contrast, more recent studies have increasingly incorporated structured and transparent methods to evaluate study quality. A number of validated tools are currently available to facilitate the assessment of bias in prevalence studies nd their use has become more common in recent years. Migliavaca et al. conducted a review of these tools, noting substantial variability in their structure and assessed domains (11). Among the available tools, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool is widely regarded as the most methodologically robust for the evaluation of prevalence studies (11, 17, 18). Other instruments frequently utilized in this context include the Risk of Bias Tool for Pre valence Studies by Hoy et al., the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), the STROBE statement (predominantly a reporting guideline), and AMSTAR 2 for the evaluation of systematic reviews (19–23). For example, Thomas et al. (24), Wang et al. (25), and Reale et al. (26) applied modified versions of the Hoy tool, while Dobrosavljevic et al. (27), Cénat et al. (28), Lynch et al. (29), Jakobsson et al. (30), and Azmeraw et al. (31) used JBI-based checklists. Umbrella reviews and large-scale meta-analyses published since 2020, such as those by Ayano et al. (5, 32), and Sacco et al. (33), more consistently applied formal risk-of-bias evaluations using AMSTAR or AXIS.
In view of the considerable uncertainty regarding the quality of bias assessment in many systemic reviews and meta-analyses on the prevalence of ADHD, there is an evident necessity for research that prioritizes the reliability and validity of these data. Accurate burden estimation, informed policy, and effective service planning all depend on high-quality prevalence research. In response, we developed and adapted a critical appraisal tool specifically for assessing the methodological quality of ADHD prevalence studies. Our aims were: (1) to establish a transparent and rigorous tool tailored to clinically defined ADHD prevalence studies, and (2) to apply this tool to a selection of primary studies identified our previous paper (34). Our goal was to identify common sources of bias and contribute to a more robust framework for evaluating ADHD prevalence among children, adolescents, and adults.
2 Methods
2.1 Search strategy and inclusion criteria
The searching strategy has already been published in a meta-analysis in our previous paper (34). In brief: A comprehensive PubMed/MEDLINE search was performed up to January 2, 2024, including studies in all languages. Eligible studies were observational cohort (retrospective, prospective, or registry-based), cross-sectional, and clinical studies from general population samples where ADHD was diagnosed either clinically (per ICD or DSM criteria) or through validated research scales. Only studies involving cases of ADHD that had been clinically diagnosed by a psychiatrist, psychologist, paediatrician or other qualified medical professional specialising in psychiatry, and that had been performed in a clinical setting, including a clinical interview conducted by a psychiatrist in combination with other diagnostic tools (e.g. screening questionnaires) or on their own, were considered. Studies in which ADHD diagnoses were recorded in health databases, as well as surveys in which participants reported having received an ADHD diagnosis from a qualified physician, were also included. However, studies identifying ADHD cases based solely on screening tools completed by parents or teachers were excluded. Participants included in the selected studies were stratified by age group. The studies were classified into four categories: one-stage and two-stage clinical studies; and survey- and registry-based studies utilising medical records data.
2.2 Selection of a tool for the quality assessment
We primarily employed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool, which is designed for use in systematic reviews, to critically evaluate the included studies and assess the reliability and relevance of prevalence studies (19). This checklist evaluates the risk of bias in a study’s design, conduct, and analysis. It consists of nine questions, each with four possible responses: “yes,” “no,” “unclear,” or “not applicable”.
2.3 Quality assessment process and adaptation of the quality assessment tool
The developers of the JBI tool emphasise that the decision to include or exclude a study from a systematic review ultimately rests with the reviewer (19). To enhance the objectivity and validity of our assessments, we employed a hierarchical evaluation approach for overall risk of bias, inspired by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (35, 36).
2.3.1 Adaptation of the JBI checklist for prevalence studies: grouping and assessment process
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies is a widely used and validated instrument designed to evaluate the methodological quality of observational studies on various clinical topics. However, its general structure, intended for broad applicability, can limit its precision when applied to specific research areas, such as ADHD prevalence. To address this, we adapted and reorganised the original nine JBI items into four conceptual domains (D1–D4), each representing a critical area where bias may be introduced in prevalence studies. This domain-based structure enables a more systematic and transparent assessment, particularly suited to the diverse methodological demands of ADHD prevalence research. Study design differences—such as clinical vs. population-based samples, diagnostic procedures, or sampling strategies—necessitate tailored appraisal criteria. Our upgraded tool reflects these needs by providing a refined framework aligned with the unique characteristics of ADHD prevalence studies. The four domains and their corresponding items are described in detail below.
D1. Risk of bias in sample selection:
This domain includes questions that assess the representativeness and adequacy of the sample:
● Question 1 from the JBI checklist: Representativeness of the sample frame
● Question 2 from the JBI checklist: Sampling method
● Question 3 from the JBI checklist: Sample size
● Question 4 from the JBI checklist: Characteristics of the participants and the research environment
D2. Risk of bias in measurement and classification:
This domain focuses on the accuracy and reliability of the measurement tools used in the study:
● Question 6 from the JBI checklist: Validity of the methods used
● Question 7 from the JBI checklist: Standardization and reliability of the measurements
D3. Risk of bias due to non-response:
This domain evaluates potential bias introduced by non-respondents or attrition:
● Question 5 from the JBI checklist: Adequacy of sample coverage in the analysis
● Question 9 from the JBI checklist: Appropriateness of the response rate
D4. Risk of bias in statistical analysis:
This domain addresses the robustness and appropriateness of the statistical methods used:
● Question 8 from the JBI checklist: Statistical analysis procedures
2.3.2 Evaluation process and overall assessment
For each question, we assessed the potential for bias by evaluating the quality of the reported information and the adherence to best practices for that aspect of the study design. The overall evaluation was conducted at two levels:
● Individual question assessment: Each question was rated based on the provided responses (Yes, No, Unclear, Not Applicable), with additional interpretation where necessary (e.g., “unclear” responses indicating poor or insufficient reporting).
● Domain-level assessment: As per the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, each domain was assessed using a series of signalling questions (36). If the response to any signalling question within a domain indicated a high risk of bias, the entire domain was rated as such. The responses to the questions within each domain were then aggregated to form an overall risk assessment
● Overall risk rating: The domain ratings were combined into an overall judgment of each study’s risk of bias. The final overall risk was classified into three categories:
• Low risk: If all domains were rated as low risk.
• Some concerns: If at least one domain raised concerns (e.g., unclear responses or unclear reporting).
• High risk: If any domain was rated as high risk.
By employing this structured approach, we aimed to enhance the assessment’s objectivity while ensuring that the final risk ratings accurately reflected the potential biases in the study design, measurement, non-response handling, and statistical analysis.
3 Results
3.1 Quality assessment process
We began our evaluation with Question 8, which focuses on statistical analysis. However, because a meta-analysis has been conducted and all statistical data have been re-analysed, including calculation of missing values such as confidence intervals and prevalence by age and gender, this domain was considered less critical for our initial assessment (37). When such data were missing, we added the comment “find additional information” and did not formally assess the domain for bias. Nonetheless, study design and statistical strength are still addressed in other tool parts. For example, Question 3 pertains to sample size calculation, which influences statistical power, while Questions 2 and 9 address proper weighting in the sampling process or adjustments for attrition affecting representativeness.
In cases where studies used a two-stage approach (e.g., initial screening followed by diagnostic confirmation) but failed to account for false negatives from the screening stage in their prevalence estimates, we considered their statistical analysis flawed. These studies were automatically rated as having a high overall risk of bias.
We continued our evaluation domain by domain, assessing the remaining questions accordingly. The results from each domain were then integrated into a final judgment of each study’s overall risk of bias. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of this evaluation framework.
Figure 1. Process of critical appraisal for question 8.
Within the JBI checklist for studies reporting prevalence, we adapted and expanded the criteria to improve objectivity and clarity. Table 1 presents a comparison of the Original JBI Tool vs. the Adapted JBI-based risk of Bias Assessment.
Table 1. Comparison of the original JBI tool and the adapted JBI-based risk of bias assessment used in this study.
3.2 Evaluation of the selected studies
We evaluated 101 studies (38–138) reporting the prevalence of ADHD, which were identified in our previous paper (34), using the modified JBI critical appraisal tool. Of these, 46 were two-stage clinical studies, 24 were one-stage clinical studies, 8 were survey-based studies, and 23 studies estimated prevalence using data from medical databases.
In summary, only 7 studies (6.9%) were rated as having a low overall risk of bias. Of these, 5 were two-stage clinical studies—including one focused on preschool children and children, one on adults, and one on children—while two were a single-stage clinical studies involving children and adolescents. This corresponds to 10.9% of two-stage clinical studies and 8.3% of one-stage clinical studies being assessed as low risk regarding potential bias affecting prevalence estimates.
In contrast, 32 studies (31.7%) were assessed as having some concerns, and 62 studies (61.4%) were rated as having a high risk of bias.
Of the studies, 94 (93.1%) used valid diagnostic methods for ADHD, while seven (6.9%) used methods that were unclear. Nevertheless, only 55 studies (54.5%) were assessed as having a low risk of bias in the measurement domain, while six studies (5.9%) were rated as high risk in this domain.
In the domain of sample selection, 42 studies (41.6%) were found to be at high risk of bias, while 36 studies (35.6%) were rated as low risk. Regarding the non-response domain, where applicable, 30 studies (29.7%) were assessed as low risk, and 19 studies (18.8%) as high risk.
When analysing by age groups:
● Preschool children were included in 21 studies (exclusively or alongside other age groups). Of these,
• 9 studies (42.9%) were rated as high risk,
• 1 study (4.8%) was low risk, and
• 11 studies (52.4%) were considered to have some concerns.
● Children were the focus of 69 studies (either exclusively or in combination). Of these,
• 42 studies (60.9%) were rated high risk,
• 5 studies (7.2%) were of low risk, and
• 22 studies (31.9%) were identified as having some concerns.
● Adolescents were included in 58 studies. Of these,
• 35 studies (60.3%) were rated high risk,
• 2 studies (3.4%) as low risk, and
• 21 studies (36.2%) were considered to have some concerns.
● Adults were included in 11 studies (either alone or with other age groups). Of these,
• 6 studies (54.5%) were rated high risk,
• 2 studies (18.2%) were of low risk, and
• 3 studies (27.3%) were considered to have some concerns.
● All age groups were included in 7 studies. Of these,
• 6 studies (85.7%) were rated high risk, and
• 1 study (14.3%) was considered to have some concerns.
4 Discussion
This study makes two key contributions to ADHD epidemiology: (1) a critical evaluation of existing prevalence studies using clinical diagnostic criteria, and (2) the development and application of an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such a modified JBI framework has been applied systematically and in such detail to ADHD research. Our findings offer a pathway toward more standardised and rigorous critical appraisal practices in ADHD prevalence research and prevalence studies more broadly.
In this study, we applied critical appraisal to the 101 studies that defined the prevalence of clinically confirmed ADHD and were included in our 2024 meta-analysis (see the Supplementary Material, Supplementary Table S2) (34). We enhanced the appraisal to reflect the stricter quality standards established through our adapted appraisal tool. We have previously published a systematic review in the European Psychiatry (34) using the PRISMA approach, which is recommended for systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA approach is not very specific in terms of critical appraisal. Therefore, we decided to address this issue in a separate paper that includes the JBI tool. Through this study, we developed an adapted, domain-based critical appraisal tool that addresses methodological features specific to ADHD prevalence research. Another reason is associated with study types. PRISMA mainly focuses on clinical studies, which are not necessarily applicable for registry-based studies. In this context, we modified the JBI tool. We hope that this modified tool will make critical appraisal in ADHD epidemiological studies more accurate.
The adapted appraisal tool addresses several limitations inherent in the original JBI checklist, most notably the absence of a validated scoring system and the reliance on subjective judgement. In light of the inconsistencies across existing risk of bias tools, we developed a hierarchical evaluation scheme to facilitate more objective assessments. Our approach involved conducting a comparative analysis of the original JBI tool, RoB 2, and a JBI-based tool that had been adapted specifically for the context of our study. This structured approach allows for more meaningful comparisons between studies and provides researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in similar fields with a practical resource.
To address the limitations of item-level interpretation in the original checklist, we organised the nine JBI items into four key domains—each representing a potential pathway through which bias may be introduced in observational prevalence studies. The rationale for aggregating domain-level assessments into a single overall risk of bias rating—categorised as low, some concerns, or high—is grounded in the need to summarise complex evaluations in a manner that facilitates interpretation, comparison, and synthesis, This approach aligns with the practice adopted in several established tools (e.g., RoB 2, GRADE) that balance detail with usability. Overall ratings were derived through a transparent, rule-based synthesis of domain-level findings. The domain structure ensures that the complexity of each study’s methodological strengths and weaknesses is preserved throughout the appraisal process, while the final summary risk rating serves as a practical means for interpreting and integrating findings into meta-analyses and broader reviews. Our approach represents a step toward more standardised, structured, and replicable critical appraisal practices in ADHD epidemiology—and potentially beyond.
Our analysis focused exclusively on studies reporting prevalence based on clinically confirmed ADHD diagnoses, to ensure higher diagnostic validity. When developing our evaluation strategy, we deliberately avoided the simplified scoring system used in previous reviews [e.g., Dobrosavljević (27); Cénat et al. (28)], which gives equal weight to all checklist items. This can mask significant methodological flaws, meaning that studies with poor sampling or invalid measurement methods are rated similarly to those with only minor flaws. Our findings demonstrate the importance of a more nuanced assessment framework.
A key finding of this review is that 61.4% of studies that used clinical methods to estimate ADHD prevalence were rated as being at high risk of bias. Only a small number met the criteria for low risk. Had we excluded all high-risk studies, more than half of the literature would have been removed from the analysis. This highlights a critical tension in prevalence research: while many studies contain methodological weaknesses, they may still offer valuable insights, particularly in populations or settings that have not been extensively researched. Therefore, the results of systematic reviews should be interpreted with careful consideration of study quality, rather than relying on binary inclusion criteria.
We also observed considerable heterogeneity in the results of studies with different designs, particularly in two-stage clinical evaluations. This underscores the necessity of future systematic reviews and meta-analyses that account for variability in study design when estimating global ADHD prevalence. The modified tool developed in this study provides a framework for such work and could form the basis of improved critical appraisal practices in psychiatric epidemiology. Although PRISMA tools are widely used in this process, they are not specific enough, and an upgrade may be required to guide researchers more effectively in assessing study quality. Our results suggest that there is a need for more refined tools to better guide researchers in assessing and minimising bias in prevalence research. To enhance objectivity and minimise bias in the selection and appraisal of studies, risk-of-bias assessments should be conducted by at least two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements (11, 12, 139). Systematic review authors are encouraged to transparently present quality assessments in both narrative summaries and structured tables, highlighting any concerns, methodological inconsistencies, or noteworthy findings.
Despite its strengths, this study has several limitations. Firstly, the evaluation tool used was more complex and time-consuming than the JBI approach, as it required strict criteria for assigning a low risk of bias. Consequently, only a few studies received such ratings. This may have created the misleading impression that the overall quality of studies in this field is poor. Secondly, we did not distinguish between fully structured and semi-structured diagnostic interviews, which could affect prevalence estimates. Similarly, we did not analyse the influence of different informants (e.g., parents or teachers), although including clinical assessments likely reduced related bias. Thirdly, the poor quality of reporting in many studies limited our ability to accurately assess the risk of bias. Thirdly, the poor quality of reporting in many of the studies meant that we were unable to accurately assess the risk of bias. In several cases, we were unable to confirm or rule out potential sources of bias due to a lack of information. For example, Froehlich et al. (82), received a higher risk rating due to a lack of detail regarding who conducted the clinical interviews. This emphasises the importance of adhering to established reporting guidelines, such as the STROBE statement. Moving forward, authors may also benefit from using structured tools, such as the JBI checklist that was applied in our review, to ensure more transparent and comprehensive reporting. Fourthly, although domains marked as “not applicable” were not rated—as bias could not logically arise in those cases—the design of certain studies, particularly survey- and registry-based ones, still posed challenges for risk of bias assessment. For instance, in survey studies reporting clinician-diagnosed ADHD and in analyses using health registry data, question 7 of the JBI checklist frequently impeded a judgment of low risk of bias. This was due to uncertainty about whether the diagnosis was applied consistently across all participants, as variability in diagnostic procedures and judgment between different clinicians is likely. Studies in which a single clinician or clinical team assessed all participants were considered more reliable in this regard. Although the relevance of question 7 in these cases is debatable, its inclusion highlights a key limitation—yet it may also give a misleading impression that the overall study quality is poor. In the case of studies that utilized administrative databases, three of the nine checklist questions were found to be inapplicable. This underscores the necessity for a risk of bias instrument that is customized for such designs, one that also considers other relevant sources of bias, such as the utilization of validated case definitions to mitigate the risk of including false positives in the final analysis.
As part of our appraisal, we excluded two studies from our systematic review. Bishry et al. (140) relied primarily on screening tool data (CASS:S) to report ADHD prevalence, however the diagnostic confirmation using K-SADS-PL revealed that only 12 out of 87 screened children met the criteria. This indicates that the reported prevalence was not based on clinical evaluation alone. Anderson et al. (141) were excluded due to their use of outdated diagnostic criteria that were inconsistent with contemporary DSM/ICD standards. We also highlight the study by Bannett et al. (47), which derived ADHD prevalence estimates from electronic health records, but which did not aim to assess prevalence. Therefore, it was assessed as being at high risk of bias, primarily due to issues with the sampling frame.
Our findings emphasize the importance of rigorous critical appraisal in ADHD prevalence reviews and meta-analyses. Authors should report their methods and procedures with greater precision to enable accurate assessment of study quality. The field would benefit from the wider adoption of structured and transparent evaluation frameworks to improve the comparability and validity of studies. These frameworks would support more accurate prevalence estimates and inform evidence-based planning in mental health services and research. Researchers should consider using enhanced appraisal tools when planning studies to proactively minimise bias, particularly during the design and registration phases of clinical and epidemiological research.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MT: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. SP: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. IL: Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. MS: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency, research core funding No. J3-50127 and research funding No. P1-0189.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. We used artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including language models, to improve the linguistic clarity and accuracy of the manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1646618/full#supplementary-material
Supplementary Table 1 | Summary of systematic reviews and corresponding study quality assessment tools.
Supplementary Table 2 | Assessment of the methodological quality of ADHD prevalence studies using the adapted JBI tool.
References
1. Song P, Zha M, Yang Q, Zhang Y, Li X, Rudan I, et al. The prevalence of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. (2021) 11:04009. doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.04009
2. Sayal K, Prasad V, Daley D, Ford T, and Coghill D. ADHD in children and young people: prevalence, care pathways, and service provision. Lancet Psychiatry. (2018) 5:175–86. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30167-0
3. Magnus W, Anilkumar AC, and Shaban K. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL (2025). Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441838/ (Accessed March 26, 2025).
4. Salari N, Ghasemi H, Abdoli N, Rahmani A, Shiri MH, Hashemian AH, et al. The global prevalence of ADHD in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ital J Pediatr. (2023) 49:48. doi: 10.1186/s13052-023-01456-1
5. Ayano G, Demelash S, Gizachew Y, Tsegay L, and Alati R. The global prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. (2023) 339:860–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.071
6. Faraone SV, Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zheng Y, Biederman J, Bellgrove MA, et al. The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2021) :128:789–818. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022
7. Shooshtary MH, Chimeh N, Najafi M, Mohamadi MR, Yousefi-Nouraie R, and Rahimi-Mvaghar A. The prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Iran: A systematic review. Iran J Psychiatry. (2010) 5:88–92.
8. Polanczyk G, de Lima MS, Horta BL, Biederman J, and Rohde LA. The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis. Am J Psychiatry. (2007) 164:942–8. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.942
9. Polanczyk GV, Willcutt EG, Salum GA, Kieling C, and Rohde LA. ADHD prevalence estimates across three decades: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Int J Epidemiol. (2014) 43:434–42. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt261
10. Liu A, Xu Y, Yan Q, and Tong L. The prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder among Chinese children and adolescents. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:11169. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29488-2
11. Migliavaca CB, Stein C, Colpani V, Munn Z, and Falavigna M. Prevalence Estimates Reviews – Systematic Review Methodology Group (PERSyst). Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. (2020) 127:59–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.039
12. Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. (2020) 35:49–60. doi: 10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
13. Scahill L and Schwab-Stone M. Epidemiology of ADHD in school-age children. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. (2000) 9:541–55, vii. doi: 10.1016/S1056-4993(18)30106-8
14. Simon V, Czobor P, Bálint S, Mészáros A, and Bitter I. Prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. (2009) 194:204–11. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.048827
15. Willcutt EG. The prevalence of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Neurotherapeutics. (2012) 9:490–9. doi: 10.1007/s13311-012-0135-8
16. Catalá-López F, Peiró S, Ridao M, Sanfélix-Gimeno G, Gènova-Maleras R, and Catalá MA. Prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in Spain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. BMC Psychiatry. (2012) 12:168. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-12-168
17. Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, and Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2014) 14:108. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-108
18. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, and Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. (2015) 13:147–53. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054
19. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, and Jordan Z editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI (2024). Available online at: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
20. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. (2012) 65:934–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014
21. Wells G, Shea S, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available online at: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (Accessed May 12, 2025).
22. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. (2008) 61:344–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
23. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. (2017) 358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
24. Thomas R, Sanders S, Doust J, Beller E, and Glasziou P. Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. (2015) 135:e994–1001. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-3482
25. Wang T, Liu K, Li Z, Xu Y, Liu Y, Shi W, et al. Prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. (2017) 17:32. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-1187-9
26. Reale L and Bonati M. ADHD prevalence estimates in Italian children and adolescents: a methodological issue. Ital J Pediatr. (2018) 44:108. doi: 10.1186/s13052-018-0545-2
27. Dobrosavljevic M, Solares C, Cortese S, Andershed H, and Larsson H. Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2020) 118:282–9. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.042
28. Cénat JM, Blais-Rochette C, Morse C, Vandette MP, Noorishad PG, Kogan C, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among US black individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. (2021) 78:21–8. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2788
29. Lynch S, McDonnell T, Leahy D, Gavin B, and McNicholas F. Prevalence of mental health disorders in children and adolescents in the Republic of Ireland: a systematic review. Ir J Psychol Med. (2023) 40:51–62. doi: 10.1017/ipm.2022.46
30. Jakobsson CE, Johnson NE, Ochuku B, Baseke R, Wong E, Musyimi CW, et al. Meta-analysis: prevalence of youth mental disorders in Sub-Saharan Africa. Glob Ment Health (Camb). (2024) 11:e109. doi: 10.1017/gmh.2024.82
31. Azmeraw M, Temesgen D, Kassaw A, Zemariam AB, Kerebeh G, Abebe GK, et al. The prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and its associated factors among children in Ethiopia, 2024: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2024) 3:1425841. doi: 10.3389/frcha.2024.1425841
32. Ayano G, Tsegay L, Gizachew Y, Necho M, Yohannes K, Abraha M, et al. Prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: Umbrella review of evidence generated across the globe. Psychiatry Res. (2023) 328:115449. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115449
33. Sacco R, Camilleri N, Eberhardt J, Umla-Runge K, and Newbury-Birch D. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of mental disorders among children and adolescents in Europe. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2024) 33:2877–94. doi: 10.1007/s00787-022-02131-2
34. Popit S, Serod K, Locatelli I, and Stuhec M. Prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Psychiatry. (2024) 67:e68. doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.1786
35. Risk of bias tools. Current version of RoB 2 . Available online at: https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2 (Accessed April 16, 2025).
36. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. (2019) 366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
37. Systematic_Reviews.pdf . Available online at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf (Accessed April 16, 2025).
38. Akmatov MK, Steffen A, Holstiege J, Hering R, Schulz M, and Bätzing J. Trends and regional variations in the administrative prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in Germany. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:17029. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35048-5
39. Aliye K, Tesfaye E, and Soboka M. High rate of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children 6 to 17 years old in Southwest Ethiopia findings from a community-based study. BMC Psychiatry. (2023) 23:144. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-04636-9
40. Almqvist F, Puura K, Kumpulainen K, Tuompo-Johansson E, Henttonen I, Huikko E, et al. Psychiatric disorders in 8-9-year-old children based on a diagnostic interview with the parents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (1999) 8 Suppl 4:17–28. doi: 10.1007/pl00010699
41. Alyahri A and Goodman R. The prevalence of DSM-IV psychiatric disorders among 7–10 year old Yemeni schoolchildren. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2008) 43:224–30. doi: 10.1007/s00127-007-0293-x
42. Ambuabunos EA, Ofovwe EG, and Ibadin MO. Community survey of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among primary school pupils in Benin City, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med. (2011) 10:91–6. doi: 10.4103/1596-3519.82065
43. Amiri S, Fakhari A, Maheri M, and Mohammadpoor Asl A. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in primary school children of Tabriz, North-West Iran. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. (2010) 24:597–601. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01145.x
44. Amiri S, Ghoreishizadeh MA, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Jonggoo M, Golmirzaei J, Abdi S, et al. Prevalence of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Adult ADHD): Tabriz. Iran J Psychiatry. (2014) 9:83–8.
45. Ashenafi Y, Kebede D, Desta M, and Alem A. Prevalence of mental and behavioural disorders in Ethiopian children. East Afr Med J. (2001) 78:308–11. doi: 10.4314/eamj.v78i6.9024
46. Bachmann CJ, Philipsen A, and Hoffmann F. ADHD in Germany: trends in diagnosis and pharmacotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int. (2017) 114:141–8. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0141
47. Bannett Y, Feldman HM, Bentley JP, Ansel DA, Wang CJ, and Huffman LC. Variation in rate of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder management by primary care providers. Acad Pediatr. (2020) 20:384–90. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2019.11.016
48. Bansal PD and Barman R. Psychopathology of school going children in the age group of 10–15 years. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. (2011) 1:43–7. doi: 10.4103/2229-516X.81980
49. Benjasuwantep B, Ruangdaraganon N, and Visudhiphan P. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among primary school students in Bangkok. J Med Assoc Thai. (2002) 85 Suppl 4:S1232–1240.
50. Bianchini R, Postorino V, Grasso R, Santoro B, Migliore S, Burlò C, et al. Prevalence of ADHD in a sample of Italian students: a population-based study. Res Dev Disabil. (2013) 34:2543–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.027
51. Bitsko RH, Claussen AH, Lichstein J, Black LI, Jones SE, Danielson ML, et al. Mental health surveillance among children - United States, 2013-2019. MMWR Suppl. (2022) 71:1–42. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.su7102a1
52. Bøe T, Heiervang ER, Stormark KM, Lundervold AJ, and Hysing M. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in Norwegian 10-14-year-olds: Results from a cross-sectional study. PloS One. (2021) 16:e0248864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248864
53. Bosch R, Pagerols M, Rivas C, Sixto L, Bricollé L, Español-Martín G, et al. Neurodevelopmental disorders among Spanish school-age children: prevalence and sociodemographic correlates. Psychol Med. (2022) 52:3062–72. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720005115
54. Brault MC and Lacourse É. Prevalence of prescribed attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder medications and diagnosis among Canadian preschoolers and school-age children: 1994-2007. Can J Psychiatry. (2012) 57:93–101. doi: 10.1177/070674371205700206
55. Brook U and Boaz M. Attention deficit and learning disabilities (ADHD/LD) among high school pupils in Holon (Israel). Patient Educ Couns. (2005) 58:164–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.07.012
56. Brownell MD and Yogendran MS. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in Manitoba children: medical diagnosis and psychostimulant treatment rates. Can J Psychiatry. (2001) 46:264–72. doi: 10.1177/070674370104600307
57. Canals J, Morales-Hidalgo P, Jané MC, and Domènech E. ADHD prevalence in spanish preschoolers: comorbidity, socio-demographic factors, and functional consequences. J Atten Disord. (2018) 22:143–53. doi: 10.1177/1087054716638511
58. Canals Sans J, Morales Hidalgo P, Roigé Castellví J, Voltas Moreso N, and Hernández Martínez C. Prevalence and epidemiological characteristics of ADHD in pre-school and school age children in the province of Tarragona, Spain. J Atten Disord. (2021) 25:1818–33. doi: 10.1177/1087054720938866
59. Catherine TG, Robert NG, Mala KK, Kanniammal C, and Arullapan J. Assessment of prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among schoolchildren in selected schools. Indian J Psychiatry. (2019) 61:232–7. doi: 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_333_17
60. Chen YL, Chen WJ, Lin KC, Shen LJ, and Gau SSF. Prevalence of DSM-5 mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of children in Taiwan: methodology and main findings. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. (2019) 29:e15. doi: 10.1017/S2045796018000793
61. Chung W, Jiang SF, Paksarian D, Nikolaidis A, Castellanos FX, Merikangas KR, et al. Trends in the prevalence and incidence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among adults and children of different racial and ethnic groups. JAMA Netw Open. (2019) 2:e1914344. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.14344
62. Costello EJ, Mustillo S, Erkanli A, Keeler G, and Angold A. Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. (2003) 60:837–44. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837
63. Daniel HMC, Duarte I, Caye A, Suleman A, Fumo W, and Rohde LA. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Mozambique: an epidemiological investigation in a primary school sample. Braz J Psychiatry. (2024) 46:e20233343. doi: 10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3343
64. Danielson ML, Bitsko RH, Ghandour RM, Holbrook JR, Kogan MD, and Blumberg SJ. Prevalence of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis and associated treatment among U.S. children and adolescents, 2016. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. (2018) 47:199–212. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2017.1417860
65. Danielson ML, Visser SN, Gleason MM, Peacock G, Claussen AH, and Blumberg SJ. A national profile of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis and treatment among US children aged 2 to 5 years. J Dev Behav Pediatr. (2017) 38:455–64. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000477
66. Davidovitch M, Koren G, Fund N, Shrem M, and Porath A. Challenges in defining the rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment: trends over the last decade. BMC Pediatr. (2017) 17:218. doi: 10.1186/s12887-017-0971-0
67. Davis DW, Feygin Y, Creel L, Williams PG, Lohr WD, Jones VF, et al. Longitudinal trends in the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and stimulant use in preschool children on medicaid. J Pediatr. (2019) 207:185–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.10.062
68. Davis DW, Jawad K, Feygin Y, Creel L, Kong M, Sun J, et al. Disparities in ADHD diagnosis and treatment by race/ethnicity in youth receiving Kentucky medicaid in 2017. Ethn Dis. (2021) 31:67–76. doi: 10.18865/ed.31.1.67
69. Deivasigamani TR. Psychiatric morbidity in primary school children - an epidemiological study. Indian J Psychiatry. (1990) 32:235–40.
70. Dodangi N, Habibi Ashtiani N, and Valadbeigi B. Prevalence of DSM-IV TR psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents of Paveh, a western city of Iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J. (2014) 16:e16743. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.16743
71. DonFrancesco R, Marano A, Calderoni D, Mugnaini D, Thomas F, Di Trani M, et al. Prevalence of severe ADHD: an epidemiological study in the Italian regions of Tuscany and Latium. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. (2015) 24:525–33. doi: 10.1017/S2045796014000523
72. Elberling H, Linneberg A, Rask CU, Houman T, Goodman R, and Mette Skovgaard A. Psychiatric disorders in Danish children aged 5–7 years: A general population study of prevalence and risk factors from the Copenhagen Child Cohort (CCC 2000). Nord J Psychiatry. (2016) 70:146–55. doi: 10.3109/08039488.2015.1070199
73. Ercan ES, Bilaç Ö, Uysal Özaslan T, and Rohde LA. Is the prevalence of ADHD in Turkish elementary school children really high? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2015) 50:1145–52. doi: 10.1007/s00127-015-1071-9
74. Ercan ES, Kandulu R, Uslu E, Ardic UA, Yazici KU, Basay BK, et al. Prevalence and diagnostic stability of ADHD and ODD in Turkish children: a 4-year longitudinal study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. (2013) 7:30. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-7-30
75. Ercan ES, Unsel-Bolat G, Tufan AE, Karakoc Demirkaya S, Bilac O, Celik G, et al. Effect of impairment on the prevalence and comorbidities of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in a national survey: nation-wide prevalence and comorbidities of ADHD. J Atten Disord. (2022) 26:674–84. doi: 10.1177/10870547211017985
76. Farahat T, Alkot M, Rajab A, and Anbar R. Attention-deficit hyperactive disorder among primary school children in Menoufia Governorate, Egypt. Int J Family Med. (2014) 2014:257369. doi: 10.1155/2014/257369
77. Farbstein I, Mansbach-Kleinfeld I, Auerbach JG, Ponizovsky AM, and Apter A. The Israel Survey of Mental Health among Adolescents: prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, comorbidity, methylphenidate use, and help-seeking patterns. Isr Med Assoc J. (2014) 16:568–73.
78. Fast K, Wentz E, Roswall J, Strandberg M, Bergman S, and Dahlgren J. Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism in 12-year-old children: A population-based cohort. Dev Med Child Neurol. (2024) 66:493–500. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.15757
79. Fayyad J, De Graaf R, Kessler R, Alonso J, Angermeyer M, Demyttenaere K, et al. Cross-national prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Br J Psychiatry. (2007) 190:402–9. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.034389
80. Ford T, Goodman R, and Meltzer H. The British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey 1999: the prevalence of DSM-IV disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2003) 42:1203–11. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200310000-00011
81. Francés L, Ruiz A, Soler CV, Francés J, Caules J, Hervás A, et al. Prevalence, comorbidities, and profiles of neurodevelopmental disorders according to the DSM-5-TR in children aged 6 years old in a European region. Front Psychiatry. (2023) 14:1260747. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1260747
82. Froehlich TE, Lanphear BP, Epstein JN, Barbaresi WJ, Katusic SK, and Kahn RS. Prevalence, recognition, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a national sample of US children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. (2007) 161:857–64. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.9.857
83. Gau SSF, Chong MY, Chen THH, and Cheng ATA. A 3-year panel study of mental disorders among adolescents in Taiwan. Am J Psychiatry. (2005) 162:1344–50. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.7.1344
84. Giacobini M, Ahnemark E, Medin E, Freilich J, Andersson M, Ma Y, et al. Epidemiology, treatment patterns, comorbidities, and concomitant medication in patients with ADHD in Sweden: A registry-based study (2018-2021). J Atten Disord. (2023) 27:1309–21. doi: 10.1177/10870547231177221
85. Giacobini M, Medin E, Ahnemark E, Russo LJ, and Carlqvist P. Prevalence, patient characteristics, and pharmacological treatment of children, adolescents, and adults diagnosed with ADHD in Sweden. J Atten Disord. (2018) 22:3–13. doi: 10.1177/1087054714554617
86. Hauck TS, Lau C, Wing LLF, Kurdyak P, and Tu K. ADHD treatment in primary care: demographic factors, medication trends, and treatment predictors. Can J Psychiatry. (2017) 62:393–402. doi: 10.1177/0706743716689055
87. Hebrani P, Abdolahian E, Behdani F, Vosoogh I, and Javanbakht A. The prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in preschool-age children in Mashhad, north-East of Iran. Arch Iran Med. (2007) 10:147–51.
88. Heiervang E, Stormark KM, Lundervold AJ, Heimann M, Goodman R, Posserud MB, et al. Psychiatric disorders in Norwegian 8- to 10-year-olds: an epidemiological survey of prevalence, risk factors, and service use. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2007) 46:438–47. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e31803062bf
89. Holden SE, Jenkins-Jones S, Poole CD, Morgan CL, Coghill D, and Currie CJ. The prevalence and incidence, resource use and financial costs of treating people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United Kingdom (1998 to 2010). Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. (2013) 7:34. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-7-34
90. Hong M, Kwack YS, Joung YS, Lee SI, Kim B, Sohn SH, et al. Nationwide rate of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis and pharmacotherapy in Korea in 2008-2011. Asia Pac Psychiatry. (2014) 6:379–85. doi: 10.1111/appy.12154
91. Huang Y, Zheng S, Xu C, Lin K, Wu K, Zheng M, et al. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in elementary school students in Shantou, China: prevalence, subtypes, and influencing factors. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. (2017) 13:785–92. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S126100
92. Jin W, Du Y, Zhong X, and David C. Prevalence and contributing factors to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a study of five- to fifteen-year-old children in Zhabei District, Shanghai. Asia Pac Psychiatry. (2014) 6:397–404. doi: 10.1111/appy.12114
93. Kadesjö B and Gillberg C. Attention deficits and clumsiness in Swedish 7-year-old children. Dev Med Child Neurol. (1998) 40:796–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1998.tb12356.x
94. Kessler RC, Adler L, Barkley R, Biederman J, Conners CK, Demler O, et al. The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Am J Psychiatry. (2006) 163:716–23. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.4.716
95. Kusi-Mensah K, Donnir G, Wemakor S, Owusu-Antwi R, and Omigbodun O. Prevalence and patterns of mental disorders among primary school age children in Ghana: correlates with academic achievement. J Child Adolesc Ment Health. (2019) 31:214–23. doi: 10.2989/17280583.2019.1678477
96. La Maison C, Munhoz TN, Santos IS, Anselmi L, Barros FC, and Matijasevich A. Prevalence and risk factors of psychiatric disorders in early adolescence: 2004 Pelotas (Brazil) birth cohort. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2018) 53:685–97. doi: 10.1007/s00127-018-1516-z
97. Leache L, Arrizibita O, Gutiérrez-Valencia M, Saiz LC, Erviti J, and Librero J. Incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses in Navarre (Spain) from 2003 to 2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179208
98. Leung PWL, Hung SF, Ho TP, Lee CC, Liu WS, Tang CP, et al. Prevalence of DSM-IV disorders in Chinese adolescents and the effects of an impairment criterion: a pilot community study in Hong Kong. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2008) 17:452–61. doi: 10.1007/s00787-008-0687-7
99. Li F, Cui Y, Li Y, Guo L, Ke X, Liu J, et al. Prevalence of mental disorders in school children and adolescents in China: diagnostic data from detailed clinical assessments of 17,524 individuals. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2022) 63:34–46. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13445
100. Lynch F, Mills C, Daly I, and Fitzpatrick C. Challenging times: prevalence of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behaviours in Irish adolescents. J Adolesc. (2006) 29:555–73. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.011
101. Maalouf FT, Ghandour LA, Halabi F, Zeinoun P, Shehab AAS, and Tavitian L. Psychiatric disorders among adolescents from Lebanon: prevalence, correlates, and treatment gap. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2016) 51:1105–16. doi: 10.1007/s00127-016-1241-4
102. Matandika I, Mategula D, Kasenda S, Adeniyi Y, and Muula A. Prevalence and correlates of common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Blantyre-Urban, Malawi. Malawi Med J. (2022) 34:105–10. doi: 10.4314/mmj.v34i2.5
103. Matte B, Anselmi L, Salum GA, Kieling C, Gonçalves H, Menezes A, et al. ADHD in DSM-5: a field trial in a large, representative sample of 18- to 19-year-old adults. Psychol Med. (2015) 45:361–73. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714001470
104. McGee R, Feehan M, Williams S, Partridge F, Silva PA, and Kelly J. DSM-III disorders in a large sample of adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (1990) 29:611–9. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199007000-00016
105. McKechnie DGJ, O’Nions E, Dunsmuir S, and Petersen I. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses and prescriptions in UK primary care, 2000-2018: population-based cohort study. BJPsych Open. (2023) 9:e121. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2023.512
106. Michielsen M, Semeijn E, Comijs HC, van de Ven P, Beekman ATF, Deeg DJH, et al. Prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in older adults in The Netherlands. Br J Psychiatry. (2012) 201:298–305. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.101196
107. Moffitt TE, Houts R, Asherson P, Belsky DW, Corcoran DL, Hammerle M, et al. Is adult ADHD a childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder? Evidence from a four-decade longitudinal cohort study. Am J Psychiatry. (2015) 172:967–77. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14101266
108. Mohammadi MR, Ahmadi N, Salmanian M, Asadian-Koohestani F, Ghanizadeh A, Alavi A, et al. Psychiatric disorders in Iranian children and adolescents. Iran J Psychiatry. (2016) 11:87–98.
109. Mulu GB, Mohammed AY, Kebede WM, Atinafu BT, Tarekegn FN, Teshome HN, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder among children aged 6–17 years in North Eastern Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. (2022) 32:321–30. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v32i2.13
110. Nazeer N, Rohanachandra Y, and Prathapan S. Prevalence of ADHD in primary school children, in Colombo District, Sri Lanka. J Atten Disord. (2022) 26:1130–8. doi: 10.1177/10870547211058704
111. Nomura K, Okada K, Noujima Y, Kojima S, Mori Y, Amano M, et al. A clinical study of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in preschool children–prevalence and differential diagnoses. Brain Dev. (2014) 36:778–85. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2013.11.004
112. Parasuraman SR, Ghandour RM, and Kogan MD. Epidemiological profile of health and behaviors in middle childhood. Pediatrics. (2020) 145:e20192244. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2244
113. Patil RN, Nagaonkar SN, Shah NB, and Bhat TS. A cross-sectional study of common psychiatric morbidity in children aged 5 to 14 years in an urban slum. J Family Med Prim Care. (2013) 2:164–8. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.117413
114. Pérez-Crespo L, Canals-Sans J, Suades-González E, and Guxens M. Temporal trends and geographical variability of the prevalence and incidence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnoses among children in Catalonia, Spain. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:6397. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63342-8
115. Petresco S, Anselmi L, Santos IS, Barros AJD, Fleitlich-Bilyk B, Barros FC, et al. Prevalence and comorbidity of psychiatric disorders among 6-year-old children: 2004 Pelotas Birth Cohort. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2014) 49:975–83. doi: 10.1007/s00127-014-0826-z
116. Pillai A, Patel V, Cardozo P, Goodman R, Weiss HA, and Andrew G. Non-traditional lifestyles and prevalence of mental disorders in adolescents in Goa, India. Br J Psychiatry. (2008) 192:45–51. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.034223
117. Pineda DA, Lopera F, Palacio JD, Ramirez D, and Henao GC. Prevalence estimations of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: differential diagnoses and comorbidities in a Colombian sample. Int J Neurosci. (2003) 113:49–71. doi: 10.1080/00207450390161921
118. Polyzoi M, Ahnemark E, Medin E, and Ginsberg Y. Estimated prevalence and incidence of diagnosed ADHD and health care utilization in adults in Sweden - a longitudinal population-based register study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. (2018) 14:1149–61. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S155838
119. Puura K, Almqvist F, Tamminen T, Piha J, Räsänen E, Kumpulainen K, et al. Psychiatric disturbances among prepubertal children in southern Finland. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (1998) 33:310–8. doi: 10.1007/s001270050060
120. Ramos-Quiroga JA, Richarte V, Soto I, Targhetta M, Ward J, and Perulero N. The prevalence and treatment of ADHD in Spain: A retrospective cohort analysis. J Atten Disord. (2023) 27:273–82. doi: 10.1177/10870547221136226
121. Riedel O, Klau S, Langner I, Bachmann C, and Scholle O. Prevalence of multimodal treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD in Germany: a nationwide study based on health insurance data. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. (2021) 15:76. doi: 10.1186/s13034-021-00431-0
122. Rohde LA, Biederman J, Busnello EA, Zimmermann H, Schmitz M, Martins S, et al. ADHD in a school sample of Brazilian adolescents: a study of prevalence, comorbid conditions, and impairments. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (1999) 38:716–22. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199906000-00019
123. Safavi P, Mohammadi MR, Khaleghi A, Mostafavi SA, Taheri S, Shahbazi K, et al. Epidemiology of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province, Iran, 2017. Arch Iran Med. (2019) 22:225–31.
124. Schlander M, Schwarz O, Trott GE, Viapiano M, and Bonauer N. Who cares for patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? Insights from Nordbaden (Germany) on administrative prevalence and physician involvement in health care provision. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2007) 16:430–8. doi: 10.1007/s00787-007-0616-1
125. Shehadeh-Sheeny A and Baron-Epel O. Prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Arab and Jewish children in Israel, where are the gaps? BMC Psychiatry. (2023) 23:586.
126. Shekim WO, Kashani J, Beck N, Cantwell DP, Martin J, Rosenberg J, et al. The prevalence of attention deficit disorders in a rural midwestern community sample of nine-year-old children. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. (1985) 24:765–70. doi: 10.1016/S0002-7138(10)60121-5
127. Shen YM, Chan BSM, Liu JB, Zhou YY, Cui XL, He YQ, et al. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders among students aged 6~ 16 years old in central Hunan, China. BMC Psychiatry. (2018) 18:243. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1823-7
128. Smalley SL, McGough JJ, Moilanen IK, Loo SK, Taanila A, Ebeling H, et al. Prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in an adolescent Finnish population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2007) 46:1575–83. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e3181573137
129. Suvarna BS and Kamath A. Prevalence of attention deficit disorder among preschool age children. Nepal Med Coll J. (2009) 11:1–4.
130. Talepasand S, Mohammadi MR, Alavi SS, Khaleghi A, Sajedi Z, Akbari P, et al. Psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents: Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates in Semnan Province in Iran. Asian J Psychiatr. (2019) 40:9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2019.01.007
131. Umar MU, Obindo JT, and Omigbodun OO. Prevalence and correlates of ADHD among adolescent students in Nigeria. J Atten Disord. (2018) 22:116–26. doi: 10.1177/1087054715594456
132. Visser SN, Danielson ML, Bitsko RH, Holbrook JR, Kogan MD, Ghandour RM, et al. Trends in the parent-report of health care provider-diagnosed and medicated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: United States, 2003-2011. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2014) 53:34–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.09.001
133. Wagner G, Zeiler M, Waldherr K, Philipp J, Truttmann S, Dür W, et al. Mental health problems in Austrian adolescents: a nationwide, two-stage epidemiological study applying DSM-5 criteria. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2017) 26:1483–99. doi: 10.1007/s00787-017-0999-6
134. Wang LJ, Lee SY, Yuan SS, Yang CJ, Yang KC, Huang TS, et al. Prevalence rates of youths diagnosed with and medicated for ADHD in a nationwide survey in Taiwan from 2000 to 2011. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. (2017) 26:624–34. doi: 10.1017/S2045796016000500
135. Xiaoli Y, Chao J, Wen P, Wenming X, Fang L, Ning L, et al. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents in northeast China. PloS One. (2014) 9:e111223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111223
136. Yang Y, Zhao S, Zhang M, Xiang M, Zhao J, Chen S, et al. Prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders among US children and adolescents in 2019 and 2020. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:997648. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.997648
137. Young JQ, Kline-Simon AH, Mordecai DJ, and Weisner C. Prevalence of behavioral health disorders and associated chronic disease burden in a commercially insured health system: findings of a case-control study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. (2015) 37:101–8. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.12.005
138. Zorlu A, Unlu G, Cakaloz B, Zencir M, Buber A, and Isildar Y. The prevalence and comorbidity rates of ADHD among school-age children in Turkey. J Atten Disord. (2020) 24:1237–45. doi: 10.1177/1087054715577991
139. Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, and Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. (2020) 7:7. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8
140. Bishry Z, Ramy HA, El-Shahawi HH, El-Sheikh MM, El-Missiry AA, and El-Missiry MA. Screening for ADHD in a sample of Egyptian adolescent school students. J Atten Disord. (2018) 22:58–65. doi: 10.1177/1087054714533190
Keywords: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, epidemiology, prevalence, systematic review, methodological quality, critical appraisal tool
Citation: Tivadar M, Popit S, Locatelli I and Stuhec M (2025) Critical appraisal of studies evaluating prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Front. Psychiatry 16:1646618. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1646618
Received: 13 June 2025; Accepted: 15 September 2025;
Published: 01 October 2025.
Edited by:
Lucie Bartova, Medical University of Vienna, AustriaReviewed by:
Thomas Vanicek, Medical University of Vienna, AustriaRobert Queissner, Medical University of Graz, Austria
Copyright © 2025 Tivadar, Popit, Locatelli and Stuhec. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Matej Stuhec, bWF0ZWpzdHVoZWNAZ21haWwuY29t; bWF0ZWouc3R1aGVjQHVtLnNp
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship