ReviewPediatric reports2025
Treatments for Eating Disorders in People with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Scoping Review.
Review in Pediatric reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Indicators Used to Identify ARFID: A Cross-Sectional Study with Professionals in Spain.Nutrients · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis scoping review aims to synthesize existing evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for managing food selectivity in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Specifically, it explores sensory, behavioral, and environmental factors influencing intervention outcomes and examines the role of occupational therapists (OTs) within multidisciplinary teams.
methodsA search was conducted across MEDLINE, EBSCO, Web of Science, OTseeker, and SCOPUS from August 2023 to October 2023. Only experimental studies published in English were included, focusing on behavioral treatments and/or occupational therapy interventions.
resultsA total of 1618 studies were identified. After removing duplicates (170 records), 259 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 61 studies included for qualitative synthesis.
conclusionsThe findings highlight a wide range of interventions, yet methodological inconsistencies and small sample sizes limit the strength of the evidence. While occupational therapists play an increasing role in feeding interventions, their specific impact remains underexplored. Future research should focus on larger, well-designed studies with standardized outcome measures to better define the effectiveness of interventions and the role of OTs within multidisciplinary teams.
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.