Cited by 128Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review

SEIDA, JENNIFER KREBS, OSPINA, MARIA B, KARKHANEH, MOHAMMAD, HARTLING, LISA, SMITH, VERONICA, CLARK, BRENDA·2009·Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

Abstract

Aim A wide range of psychosocial interventions for the treatment of individuals with autism‐spectrum disorders (ASDs) have been evaluated in systematic reviews. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for ASD. Method Comprehensive searches were conducted in 25 bibliographic databases, relevant journals and reference lists up to May 2007. Studies included were systematic reviews on any psychosocial intervention for individuals with ASDs. Two reviewers independently assessed study relevance and quality. Results Thirty systematic reviews were included. The majority of reviews evaluated interventions based on behavioural theory (n=9) or communication‐focused (n=7) therapies. Positive intervention outcomes were reported in the majority of the reviews. Methodological quality of the reviews was generally poor. Interpretation The reviews reported positive outcomes for many of the interventions, suggesting that some form of treatment is favourable over no treatment. However, there is little evidence for the relative effectiveness of these treatment options. Many of the systematic reviews had methodological weaknesses that make them vulnerable to bias. There is a need for further systematic reviews that adhere to strict scientific methods and for primary studies that make direct comparisons between different treatment options.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03211.x

Cites

43 of 43 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?

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SEIDA, J. K., OSPINA, M. B., KARKHANEH, M., HARTLING, L., SMITH, V., & CLARK, B.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-15
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
95-104
ISSN
  • 0012-1622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8749
OpenAlex
W2082653846
Cited by
128
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Alberta
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, psychosocial interventions, behavioral interventions, treatment effectiveness, methodological quality of systematic reviews, umbrella review, evidence-based treatment
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Autistic Disorder, Humans, Social Behavior, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Databases, Bibliographic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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