ReviewCadernos de saude publica2026
[Autism spectrum disorder today: critical reflections on hyperdiagnosis].
Review in Cadernos de saude publica, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study discusses the hyperdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which occurs when the identification of this disorder exceeds actual clinical relevance, including cases without significant functional impacts. Although the greater recognition of the disorder has included and supported many people, the accelerated increase in diagnoses raises questions about technical criteria, the possible use of diagnoses to obtain benefits, and the influence of social and institutional factors. Recent epidemiological studies have indicated a gradual increase in the global prevalence of ASD. Brazilian data show that about 1.2% of its population has received such a diagnosis, which evinces greater recognition and access to diagnosis. The evolution of the concept of this disorder has broadened diagnostic criteria, including milder and more heterogeneous manifestations of the condition, which has contributed to the significant increase in diagnosis rates worldwide. Factors such as greater social awareness, search for school reports, and institutional pressure for behavioral adequacy also influence increases in diagnosis. Hyperdiagnosis has negative consequences, such as early stigmatization, inadequate treatments, emotional impact on families, and distortion of epidemiological data, harming public policies. The difference between early, desirable, and judicious diagnoses and hasty ones (based on superficial evaluations) is highlighted. To promote more responsible diagnoses, this study proposes the continuous training of professionals, interdisciplinary assessments, longitudinal follow-up, and the appreciation of singularities. It also defends the expansion of public policies with no exclusive dependence on medical reports to guarantee support, prioritizing individuals' real needs.
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.