Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Russell, Ginny, Mandy, William, Elliott, Daisy, White, Rhianna, Pittwood, Tom, Ford, Tamsin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30867896
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x
Descripción
Sumario: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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.