ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
A Systematic Review of Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA): A Veritable Diagnosis or a Case of Circular Logic?
Article 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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the current level of evidence supporting the distinct diagnosis of PDA by evaluating the use of the diagnostic tools currently available.
methodsA comprehensive search of three bibliographic databases was undertaken, including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PSYCHINFO. Study selection, extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers via Covidence. English-language studies pertaining to the diagnosis of PDA with empirical data were included. Methodological bias was critically appraised using the QUADRAS-2.
results12 relevant studies were identified, nine in paediatric populations, two in adults and one in a mixed cohort. Data was usually collected via self-reported questionnaires or surveys. Two diagnostic tools were identified- the EDA-Q and the DISCO although the use of these was inconsistent. Cross-over with other conditions was also noted. Studies were all assessed as being high risk for methodological bias.
conclusionsThere was considerable inconsistency in the way PDA was identified across studies with a large proportion of studies relying on subjective rather than objective measures. The methodological bias inherent to these studies raises the issue of circular logic and makes it difficult to support any of the diagnostic tools pertaining to PDA, let alone the condition itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42423879What 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.