ReviewEXCLI journal2025
The effect of sulforaphane on autism spectrum disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in EXCLI journal, 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.
- Nrf2 Modulation by Natural Compounds in Aging, Neurodegeneration, and Neuropathic Pain.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Autism Spectrum Disorder: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?Brain sciences · 2025Review
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
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder lacking effective treatments. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of sulforaphane (SFN) for ASD. Eight databases were searched from inception to September 2024, identifying six randomized controlled trials for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes included ASD symptoms measured by the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), while safety outcomes included adverse events measured by relative risk. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated via the Grade of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results showed that SFN significantly improved total symptoms (SMD = -0.27, 95 % confidence interval (CI), -0.42, -0.12), aberrant behavior (SMD = -0.43, 95 % CI, -0.66, -0.19), hyperactivity (SMD = -0.58, 95 % CI, -1.03, -0.13), social interaction (SMD = -0.43, 95 % CI, -0.59, -0.27), social communication (SMD = -0.24, 95 % CI, -0.35, - 0.12), and restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRB) (SMD = -0.16, 95 % CI, -0.31, -0.00). Effects on irritability, anxiety, sensory sensitivity, total social skills, social awareness, social cognition, and social motivation were not statistically significant. Adverse events were similar between intervention and control groups. In conclusion, SFN shows potential in improving ASD symptoms without significant adverse effects. However, results should be interpreted cautiously due to potential influences from assessment tools, outcome assessors, and treatment duration. Further research is needed to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of SFN for ASD.
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.