2019
DOI: 10.1177/1362361319854641
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What are we targeting when we treat autism spectrum disorder? A systematic review of 406 clinical trials

Abstract: The number of trials aimed at evaluating treatments for autism spectrum disorder has been increasing progressively. However, it is not clear which outcome measures should be used to assess their efficacy, especially for treatments which target core symptoms. The present review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview regarding the outcome measures used in clinical trials for people with autism spectrum disorder. We systematically searched the Web of KnowledgeSM database between 1980 and 2016 to identify publi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
40
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
3
40
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Standardized measures were used only in a few studies, and in some cases, the authors reported only the proportion of improvement for each symptom. This important issue confirms the findings of a recent systematic review of 406 clinical trials [ 85 ], which pointed out that the tools used in autism research are heterogeneous and non-specific. This fragmentation might significantly hamper the comparison between studies and the understanding of the real effectiveness of cannabinoids in the ASD population.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Standardized measures were used only in a few studies, and in some cases, the authors reported only the proportion of improvement for each symptom. This important issue confirms the findings of a recent systematic review of 406 clinical trials [ 85 ], which pointed out that the tools used in autism research are heterogeneous and non-specific. This fragmentation might significantly hamper the comparison between studies and the understanding of the real effectiveness of cannabinoids in the ASD population.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Standardized measures were used only in few studies, and in some cases, authors have reported only the proportion of improvement for each symptom. This important issue confirms the findings of a recent systematic review of 406 clinical trials [81], which has pointed out that the tools used in autism research are heterogeneous and non-specific. This fragmentation may significantly hamper the comparison between studies and the understanding of the real effectiveness of cannabinoids in the ASD population.…”
Section: Limitation: Heterogeneity Of Studiessupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In addition, many of the existing scales were not designed to measure change but rather as screening (e.g., SRS [ 31 ]) or diagnostic tools (CARS [ 32 ] and ADOS [ 78 ]), and efforts have been made for their improvement and adaptation, such as the ADOS calibrated severity score [ 79 ]. Given the lack of optimal scales, CGI has been extensively used and it is recommended for all trials irrespective of their target in order to investigate global autism symptoms and incorporate both core and associated symptoms [ 80 , 81 ]. However, the anchoring system of CGI should be clearly reported, since it could vary materially among trials with different target symptoms (Table-S).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%