Trial reportPloS one2025
A randomized controlled trial of the effects of dog-assisted versus robot dog-assisted therapy for children with autism or Down syndrome.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Artificial intelligence, autism care, and health equity: a public health narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- An overview of the benefits of animal-assisted interventions in medical and therapeutic contexts for human health: cognitive mechanisms, sensory perception and welfare considerations.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence Tools for Social and Psychological Enhancement of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Exploring companion robots for children with autism spectrum disorder: a reflexive thematic analysis in specialist dental care.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research with controlled or crossover designs in animal-assisted therapy have largely used control groups receiving no treatment or treatment as usual, which can potentially inflate the effects of these interventions. It is therefore not always clear whether this type of therapy has a positive effect on, for example, the social skills of children with special support needs. To address this, the current study compared children (7-16 years, n = 65) with autism or Down syndrome who received five sessions of dog-assisted therapy (n = 24; 9 female) with an active control group who received five similar sessions of robot dog-assisted therapy (n = 21; 8 female) and a no-treatment control group (n = 20; 8 female). The robot dog was capable of performing autonomous behavior and responding to the child's actions and verbalizations. Using parental questionnaires, we assessed children's social and emotional skills before and after the therapy sessions or waiting period and included a follow-up measurement after 4-6 weeks. On a group level, multilevel analyses showed that children who received dog-assisted therapy improved significantly more in terms of emotional attunement and emotion regulation than children in the two other conditions. No significant differences were found for social confidence, conversational attunement, social cognition, and social motivation. Change from post-test to follow-up was also less apparent. Yet, on a more individual level, when looking at the Reliable Change Index (RCI), most of the highest RCIs (within the 90th percentile) were found in the dog-assisted therapy group. In contrast, most of the lowest RCIs (within the 10th percentile) were found in the robot-assisted group. We discuss the pros and cons of a more individualized approach in this field of study and propose a possible alternative by focusing on interaction dynamics.
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.