ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2022
The Feedback Session of an Autism Assessment: A Scoping Review of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Impacting Treatment Decisions in Caregivers of Autistic Children.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Who Shapes National Autism Guidance? A Cross-National Comparison of Autism Guideline Development, Representation, and Implementation.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Experiences and Barriers to Diagnosis Among Autistic Adults in the United States: Associations with Diagnostic Timing and Gender.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- AGREEing on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aimed to assess the quality and content of recommendations for delivering an autism diagnosis, published internationally within clinical practice guidelines. Seventeen relevant guidelines were identified. When methodological information was provided, recommendations for feedback were predominantly formed through consensus. Recommendations consistently included who should attend feedback, the timing and mode of delivery, the clinician's manner, and what should be discussed and/or included in an accompanying report. Specific recommendations were not consistent however, and a number of gaps were identified, such as the inclusion of educators and educational specific recommendations. Although individual variation is necessary for autism diagnosis disclosure, agreement on minimum standards of practice is warranted. Further investigation is required to establish best practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.