Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: a cross-sectional review and meta-analysis
Background Current global estimates suggest the proportion of the population with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have intellectual disability (ID) is approximately 50%. Our objective was to ascertain the existence of selection bias due to under-inclusion of populations with ID across all fields...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Molecular autism Jg. 10; H. 1; S. 9 - 10 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
London
BioMed Central
01.03.2019
BioMed Central Ltd Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 2040-2392, 2040-2392 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Zusammenfassung: | Background
Current global estimates suggest the proportion of the population with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have intellectual disability (ID) is approximately 50%. Our objective was to ascertain the existence of selection bias due to under-inclusion of populations with ID across all fields of autism research. A sub-goal was to evaluate inconsistencies in reporting of findings.
Methods
This review covers all original research published in 2016 in autism-specific journals with an impact factor greater than 3. Across 301 included studies, 100,245 participants had ASD. A random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the proportion of participants without ID. Selection bias was defined as where more than 75% of participants did not have ID.
Results
Meta-analysis estimated 94% of all participants identified as being on the autism spectrum in the studies reviewed did not have ID (95% CI 0.91–0.97). Eight out of ten studies demonstrated selection bias against participants with ID. The reporting of participant characteristics was generally poor: information about participants’ intellectual ability was absent in 38% of studies (
n
= 114). Where there was selection bias on ID, only 31% of studies mentioned lack of generalisability as a limitation.
Conclusions
We found selection bias against ID throughout all fields of autism research. We recommend transparent reporting about ID and strategies for inclusion for this much marginalised group. |
|---|---|
| Bibliographie: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Feature-3 ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| ISSN: | 2040-2392 2040-2392 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x |