Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38510933›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Methodological adjustments for experimental studies including neurodiverse participants: A checklist for before, during, and after laboratory visits.

Anne-Laure Le Cunff, Caitlin Glover, Brandon-Lee Martis, Vincent Giampietro, Eleanor Dommett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Anne-Laure Le CunffInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
Caitlin GloverSchool of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RH, United Kingdom.
Brandon-Lee MartisInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
Vincent GiampietroInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
Eleanor DommettInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we developed an experimental checklist for laboratory experiments including neurodiverse participants, particularly those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and dyslexia. The checklist suggests additions to the basic requirements for ethical laboratory-based studies with human participants. The suggestions emphasize physical comfort, the agency of participants concerning environmental adjustments, clarity of communication, and a focus on participants' overall well-being. Those methodological guidelines aim to help researchers in facilitating inclusive and accessible laboratory environments for neurodiverse participants in order to: •Enhance research validity by minimizing the influence of factors that affect responses in neuroscience experiments.•Facilitate research recruitment by encouraging continued participation in future studies and increasing word-of-mouth.•Improve research dissemination by fostering a more positive perception of the research process amongst neurodiverse individuals and encouraging community involvement.

Indexed as

Checklist for Experimental Studies Including Neurodiverse ParticipantsInclusive researchNeurodiversityNeuroscienceParticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID38510933
PMCPMC10950872

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.