SynthesisRevista de neurologia2026
Systematic Review of Autism in Women: Invisibilised Profiles and Gender Bias.
Synthesis in Revista de neurologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Listening to the word autism changes everything": the impact of an Autism Spectrum disorder diagnosis on families.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Gender differences in autism prevalence: origins of bias and its current scientific relevance.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence, autism care, and health equity: a public health narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) shows marked clinical heterogeneity and a pronounced sex disparity in diagnosis, with male-to-female ratios of up to 4.6:1 in the Spanish educational context, suggesting potential systematic under-identification in females. This systematic review critically examines gender bias in ASD diagnosis, focusing on females, and assesses whether current diagnostic criteria adequately capture Level 1 presentations.
methodA literature search was conducted in December 2025 across American Psychological Association's database (APA) PsycInfo, Dialnet, PsicoDoc and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), using Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome (PECO) and Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) frameworks. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) process, 26 studies (2015-2025) were included, encompassing observational, psychometric, technological, quasi-experimental and qualitative designs. Overall methodological quality was good to very good (mean CRF-QS = 15.7), and risk of bias was predominantly low.
resultsFindings indicate consistent diagnostic inequities: delayed diagnosis in girls, reduced sensitivity of standard instruments to less externalizing phenotypes, the role of social camouflaging, and moderating effects of comorbidities and contextual factors.
conclusionDiagnostic bias appears multifactorial and calls for gender-sensitive, multi-method and intersectional approaches to ensure equitable access to diagnosis and support.
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.