Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32297123›Full record

SynthesisJournal of autism and developmental disorders2020

The Prevalence of Self-injurious Behaviour in Autism: A Meta-analytic Study.

Catherine Steenfeldt-Kristensen, Chris A Jones, Caroline Richards

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine Steenfeldt-KristensenSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Chris A JonesSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Caroline RichardsSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. c.r.richards@bham.ac.uk.
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-injurious behaviour is purportedly common in autism, but prevalence rates have not yet been synthesised meta-analytically. In the present study, data from 14,379 participants in thirty-seven papers were analysed to generate a pooled prevalence estimate of self-injury in autism of 42% (confidence intervals 0.38-0.47). Hand-hitting topography was the most common form of self-injury (23%), self-cutting topography the least common (3%). Sub-group analyses revealed no association between study quality, participant intellectual disability or age and overall prevalence rate of self-injury. However, females obtained higher prevalence rates than males (p = .013) and hair pulling and self-scratching were associated with intellectual disability (p = .008 and p = .002, respectively). The results confirm very high rates of self-injury in autism and highlight within group risk-markers.

Indexed as

AdolescentAutistic DisorderFemaleHumansIntellectual DisabilityMalePrevalenceSelf-Injurious BehaviorAutismIntellectual disabilityPrevalenceSelf-harmSelf-injurious behaviour

Identifiers

PMID32297123
PMCPMC7557528
OpenAlexW3016276573

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.