Cited by 145Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Intranasal oxytocin, social cognition and neurodevelopmental disorders: A meta-analysis

Keech, Britney, Crowe, Simon, Hocking, Darren R.·2018·Psychoneuroendocrinology

Abstract

Deficits in social cognition are pervasive and characteristic of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Clinical trials of intranasal oxytocin (IN-OT) to improve social cognition have yielded inconclusive results. The current study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) considering the effect of IN-OT on social cognitive domains across a range of NDDs. Medline, PsychINFO and Scopus were searched for RCTs published through to July 25, 2017. Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 466 participants with a NDD. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model, revealed that IN-OT had no significant effect on emotion recognition (Hedges' g=0.08), a moderate but non-significant effect on empathy (Hedges' g=0.49), and a small, significant effect on theory of mind (ToM) (Hedges' g=0.21). Meta-regression indicated that the effect of IN-OT on social cognition was not moderated by the diagnosis or age of participants, or the dose or frequency of IN-OT administration. The results highlight a need for more well-designed RCTs, as it remains difficult to draw conclusions about the potential for IN-OT to improve social cognition in NDDs. The promise of IN-OT should be considered tentative.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.09.022

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The inconsistent results among these investigations may have been due to limited power or differences in participant age, oxytocin formulation or dose, treatment duration, outcome measures, or analytic methods.

    “The inconsistent results among these various investigations may have been the result of limited power or differences in participant age, oxytocin formulation or dose, treatment duration, outcome measures, or analytic methods.22–24”
  • The sample is larger than the average sample size of previous studies examining oxytocin effects on brain function in ASD and comparable to the average sample size in clinical trials examining oxytocin effects across different neurodevelopmental disorders.

    “However, it must be noted that our sample is larger than the average sample size of previous studies examining oxytocin effects on brain function in ASD44, and comparable to the average sample size in clinical trials examining oxytocin effects across different neurodevelopmental disorders83.”
  • Intranasal oxytocin has no significant effect on emotion recognition and empathy.

    “Importantly, our findings are in line with recent meta-analytical evidence indicating that intranasal oxytocin only leads to small but non-significant changes in overall social cognition in ASD44, but has no significant effect on emotion recognition and empathy83.”
  • Our findings are in line with recent meta-analytical evidence indicating that intranasal oxytocin only leads to small but non-significant changes in overall social cognition in ASD, but has no significant effect on emotion recognition and empathy.

    “Importantly, our findings are in line with recent meta-analytical evidence indicating that intranasal oxytocin only leads to small but non-significant changes in overall social cognition in ASD44, but has no significant effect on emotion recognition and empathy83.”
  • In clinical samples, no meta-analytic effect of OT was found on physiological, attentional, or behavioral measures relevant to threat, interpretation or expression of emotion, emotion recognition, or empathy.

    “In clinical samples, no meta-analytic effect was found in physiological, attentional, or behavioral measures relevant to threat (Leppanen et al., 2018), the interpretation or expression of emotion (Leppanen et al., 2017), emotion recognition or empathy (Keech et al., 2018).”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keech, B., Crowe, S., & Hocking, D. R.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Hocking, Darren R.
Venue
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
87
Pages
9-19
ISSN
0306-4530 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762583473
Cited by
145
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 14
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychoneuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DE160100042)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
intranasal oxytocin, social cognition, neurodevelopmental disorders, emotion recognition, empathy, theory of mind, autism spectrum disorder
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Cognition, Emotions, Empathy, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Oxytocin, Social Behavior, Theory of Mind, Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Social Skills

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