SynthesisJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Parent-Mediated Interventions for ASD Under 3 Years: A Systematic Review, Meta Analysis, and Moderator Analyses.
Synthesis in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. 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.
- Outcomes from the ASPEN intervention program: a randomized clinical trial of a culturally adapted parent-mediated intervention program in low-resource settings.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Trial
- Implementing a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with ASD within the Chinese child healthcare system: a real-world study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Does baseline language ability predict response to early intervention for toddlers with early signs of autism? Evidence from a caregiver-mediated program.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- A pilot evaluation of the Baby Social ABCs caregiver-mediated intervention for 6-15-month-olds with early signs of autism-feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary evidence.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 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
This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of PMIs for ASD under 3 years, and explore potential moderators influencing the effectiveness through moderator analyses. The study searched five English databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to calculate Hedges's g. Subgroup analyses and meta regression assessed the effects of potential moderators on PMIs effectiveness, with evidence quality evaluated using GRADE. A total of 31 RCTs were included in the systematic review, with 26 included in the meta-analysis. The results showed a small overall beneficial effect of PMIs on ASD under 3 years (g = 0.20). Small to trivial positive effects were found in several subdomains, including adaptive skills (g = 0.29), parent responsiveness (g = 0.23), parent-child interaction (g = 0.35), social communication (g = 0.18), and symptoms (g = - 0.22). However, PMIs did not show statistically significant effects on children's cognitive competence, language, or motor skills domains. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression explored potential moderators, but none significantly influenced the effectiveness of PMIs. The GRADE assessment showed that the certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to low. This study confirmed that PMIs demonstrate positive effects on children under 3 years old with ASD, and showed beneficial outcomes in most subdomains. However, the evidence was of moderate to low certainty, so these findings should be interpreted with caution. In the future, broader databases and more large-scale, multicenter, high-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm these effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40358871What 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.