Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: a cross-sectional review and meta-analysis / G. RUSSELL in Molecular Autism, 10 (2019)  

Public ISBD [article]  inMolecular Autism > 10 (2019) . - 9 p. Titre : Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: a cross-sectional review and meta-analysis Type de document : Texte imprimé et/ou numérique Auteurs : G. RUSSELL, Auteur ; W. MANDY, Auteur ; D. ELLIOTT, Auteur ; R. WHITE, Auteur ; T. PITTWOOD, Auteur ; T. FORD, Auteur Article en page(s) : 9 p. Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : *Autism  *Autism spectrum disorder  *Intellectual disability  *Nosology  *Selection bias  interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in  published maps and institutional affiliations. Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : 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. En ligne : https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=389 [article] Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: a cross-sectional review and meta-analysis [Texte imprimé et/ou numérique] / G. RUSSELL, Auteur ; W. MANDY, Auteur ; D. ELLIOTT, Auteur ; R. WHITE, Auteur ; T. PITTWOOD, Auteur ; T. FORD, Auteur . - 9 p. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Molecular Autism > 10 (2019) . - 9 p. Mots-clés : *Autism  *Autism spectrum disorder  *Intellectual disability  *Nosology  *Selection bias  interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in  published maps and institutional affiliations. Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : 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. En ligne : https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=389

---

1 (1 - 1 / 1)