ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2014
Comment on: 'An intervention for sensory difficulties in children with autism: a randomized trial' by Schaaf et al. (2013).
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental enrichment as a therapy for autism: A clinical trial replication and extension.Behavioral neuroscience · 2015Trial
- Unveiling the interplay of social skills and sociocultural dynamics in children with autism spectrum disorder in Pakistan.International journal of developmental disabilities · 2026Article
- Assessment of Sensory Processing and Executive Functions in Childhood: Development, Reliability, and Validity of the EPYFEI.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this letter to the editor is to comment on a recently published paper in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 'An Intervention for Sensory Difficulties in Children with Autism: A Randomized Trial' by Schaaf et al. (2013). The authors are commended for undertaking a randomised clinical trial (RCT) examining the efficacy of occupational therapy using sensory integration (OT/SI). The study complies with many of the recommended standards of RCT's including: (a) detailed eligibility criteria, (b) well-matched experimental and control groups, (c) use of gold-standard instruments to measure the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, (d) the use of functionally relevant outcome measures, (e) fidelity checking, and (f) manualization of the intervention. Additional aspects of rigour that could be considered in subsequent research include: (a) independent blinded measure of observational outcomes, (b) treatment and control interventions of equivalent dose, (c) public access to the manualized treatment guidelines, and (d) the use of a comparison occupational therapy intervention to address the same goals as the OT/SI intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24610043What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.