Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31433441›Full record

SynthesisJAMA psychiatry2019

Temporal Changes in Effect Sizes of Studies Comparing Individuals With and Without Autism: A Meta-analysis.

Eya-Mist Rødgaard, Kristian Jensen, Jean-Noël Vergnes, Isabelle Soulières, Laurent Mottron

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Does Ongoing Task Load Influence Prospective Remembering in Autism Spectrum Disorders?Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eya-Mist RødgaardDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kristian JensenThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.
Jean-Noël VergnesDépartement de Prévention, Épidémiologie, Économie de la Santé, Odontologie Légale, Université Toulouse III-Paul-Sabatier, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire/CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Isabelle SoulièresDépartement de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Laurent MottronDépartement de Psychiatrie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The definition and nature of autism have been highly debated, as exemplified by several revisions of the DSM (DSM-III, DSM-IIIR, DSM-IV, and DSM-5) criteria. There has recently been a move from a categorical view toward a spectrum-based view. These changes have been accompanied by a steady increase in the prevalence of the condition. Changes in the definition of autism that may increase heterogeneity could affect the results of autism research; specifically, a broadening of the population with autism could result in decreasing effect sizes of group comparison studies. Objective: To examine the correlation between publication year and effect size of autism-control group comparisons across several domains of published autism neurocognitive research. Data Sources: This meta-analysis investigated 11 meta-analyses obtained through a systematic search of PubMed for meta-analyses published from January 1, 1966, through January 27, 2019, using the search string autism AND (meta-analysis OR meta-analytic). The last search was conducted on January 27, 2019. Study Selection: Meta-analyses were included if they tested the significance of group differences between individuals with autism and control individuals on a neurocognitive construct. Meta-analyses were only included if the tested group difference was significant and included data with a span of at least 15 years. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted and analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline using fixed-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated slope of the correlation between publication year and effect size, controlling for differences in methods, sample size, and study quality. Results: The 11 meta-analyses included data from a total of 27 723 individuals. Demographic data such as sex and age were not available for the entire data set. Seven different psychological and neurologic constructs were analyzed based on data from these meta-analyses. Downward temporal trends for effect size were found for all constructs (slopes: -0.067 to -0.003), with the trend being significant in 5 of 7 cases: emotion recognition (slope: -0.028 [95% CI, -0.048 to -0.007]), theory of mind (-0.045 [95% CI, -0.066 to -0.024]), planning (-0.067 [95% CI, -0.125 to -0.009]), P3b amplitude (-0.048 [95% CI, -0.093 to -0.004]), and brain size (-0.047 [95% CI, -0.077 to -0.016]). In contrast, 3 analogous constructs in schizophrenia, a condition that is also heterogeneous but with no reported increase in prevalence, did not show a similar trend. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that differences between individuals with autism and those without the diagnosis have decreased over time and that possible changes in the definition of autism from a narrowly defined and homogenous population toward an inclusive and heterogeneous population may reduce our capacity to build mechanistic models of the condition.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalAutism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderCognitionHumansPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID31433441
PMCPMC6704749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.