SynthesisNature human behaviour2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the proficiency and variability of mathematical ability in populations with autism spectrum disorder.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fundamental characteristics of math ability in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), specifically proficiency and variability, remain inadequately understood. Here, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we addressed this gap by synthesizing evidence on math ability in autistic individuals relative to the non-autistic population. Searches in multiple databases yielded 66 studies. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Random-effects meta-analyses used Hedges' g and natural logarithm of variability ratio (lnVR) as effect sizes. Publication bias was adjusted for using the precision-effect test and precision-effect estimate with standard errors, as well as a three-parameter selection model. Results show that, compared with the non-autistic population, as represented by standardized norms (mean 100, s.d. 15; 3,051 participants) and typically developing (TD) control groups (2,351 participants), individuals with ASD exhibit significantly lower math scores (ASD versus norms: Hedges' g = -0.360, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.605 to -0.114; ASD versus TD: Hedges' g = -0.696, 95% CI -0.947 to -0.445) and greater variability (ASD versus norms: lnVR 0.159, 95% CI 0.102 to 0.216; ASD versus TD: lnVR 0.298, 95% CI 0.199 to 0.396). Group discrepancies were moderated by intelligence, age or their interactions. The math-intelligence relationship in ASD provides a theoretical framework for understanding their mathematical development. In addition, the ASD-TD discrepancy has widened over the past four decades. These findings underscore the need for sustained, individualized mathematical education for ASD and investigation of the developmental trajectories of mathematical skills in ASD. Methodological challenges in the field included potential publication bias and insufficient rigour in sample matching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41709032What 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.