Cited by 28Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

The Effects of DSM5 Autism Diagnostic Criteria on Number of Individuals Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review

Open access
Sturmey, Peter, Dalfern, Samantha·2014·Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

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/s40489-014-0016-7

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • In meta-analyses by Smith et al., Kulage et al., and Sturmey and Dalfren, re-diagnosing previously diagnosed DSM-IV-TR cases under DSM-5 ASD resulted in reductions of 25-50%, 31%, and 37%, respectively.

    “In the meta analyses by Smith et al [41], Kulage et al [42] and Sturmey and Dalfren [43], there was a 25-50%, 31% and 37% reduction when previously diagnosed cases on DSM-IV-TR were re-diagnosed under DSM 5 ASD.”

    From Comparison of the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD): A study from North India (2021) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Results report a median 36.97% reduction across 12 studies, supporting the cited 37% figure. But the Procedure and Results do not describe all cases as previously diagnosed under DSM-IV-TR: some samples included people meeting clinical criteria or only likely to have ASD, and one study used a heterogeneous sample. The paper calls itself a systematic review and reports a median, rather than a pooled meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mattila, M. L., Kielinen, M., Linna, S. L., Jussila, K., Ebeling, H., Bloigu, R., et al. (2011). Autism spectrum disorders according to DSM-IV- TR and comparison with DSM5. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 583-592.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sturmey, P., & Dalfern, S.
Affiliations
Queens College, CUNY (US)
Corresponding author
Sturmey, Peter
Venue
Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Published
2014-06-21
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
249-252
ISSN
  • 2195-7177 (ISSN-L)
  • 2195-7185
OpenAlex
W2003841293
Cited by
27
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria revision, autism diagnosis, diagnostic yield, mild autism, autism prevalence

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