Cited by 150Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Prevalence of Self-injurious Behaviour in Autism: A Meta-analytic Study

Open access
Steenfeldt-Kristensen, Catherine, Jones, Chris A., Richards, Caroline·2020·Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Abstract

Self-injurious behaviour is purportedly common in autism, but prevalence rates have not yet been synthesised meta-analytically. In the present study, data from 14,379 participants in thirty-seven papers were analysed to generate a pooled prevalence estimate of self-injury in autism of 42% (confidence intervals 0.38–0.47). Hand-hitting topography was the most common form of self-injury (23%), self-cutting topography the least common (3%). Sub-group analyses revealed no association between study quality, participant intellectual disability or age and overall prevalence rate of self-injury. However, females obtained higher prevalence rates than males ( p = .013) and hair pulling and self-scratching were associated with intellectual disability ( p = .008 and p = .002, respectively). The results confirm very high rates of self-injury in autism and highlight within group risk-markers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10803-020-04443-1

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart showing the number of papers included and excluded at each stage of screening and review (Moher et al. 2009)
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart showing the number of papers included and excluded at each stage of screening and review (Moher et al. 2009)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Pooled prevalence estimates for self-injurious behaviour in autism using a random-effects model. Treatment effect (TE), standard error of the treatment effect (seTE), prevalence rate, confidence intervals and weighting by the random-effects model are reported
Fig. 2 Pooled prevalence estimates for self-injurious behaviour in autism using a random-effects model. Treatment effect (TE), standard error of the treatment effect (seTE), prevalence rate, confidence intervals and weighting by the random-effects model are reportedCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Baujat chart of sources of heterogeneity
Fig. 3 Baujat chart of sources of heterogeneityCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Pooled prevalence estimate for self-injurious behaviour in autism using a random-effects model with each study omitted. Prevalence rates and confidence intervals are reported
Fig. 4 Pooled prevalence estimate for self-injurious behaviour in autism using a random-effects model with each study omitted. Prevalence rates and confidence intervals are reportedCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Pooled prevalence estimates for self-injurious behaviour in autism using a random-effects model. Treatment effect (TE), standard error of the treatment effect (seTE), prevalence rate, confidence intervals and weighting by the random-effects model are reported
Fig. 5 Pooled prevalence estimates for self-injurious behaviour in autism using a random-effects model. Treatment effect (TE), standard error of the treatment effect (seTE), prevalence rate, confidence intervals and weighting by the random-effects model are reportedCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 101 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Weiss, J. (2002). Self-injurious behaviors in autism: A literature review. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 9, 129–143.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Steenfeldt-Kristensen, C., Jones, C. A., & Richards, C.
Affiliations
  • Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Richards, Caroline
Venue
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Published
2020-04-15
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
3857-3873
ISSN
  • 0162-3257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3432
OpenAlex
W3016276573
Cited by
150
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
self-harm, autism spectrum disorder, prevalence, self-cutting, intellectual disability, sex differences, hair pulling, risk indicators
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Autistic Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Intellectual Disability, Prevalence, Self-Injurious Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review