Pharmacotherapy of restricted/repetitive behavior in autism spectrum disorder:a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of available medications for the treatment of restricted/repetitive behavior (RRBs) in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDRS), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Scopus, Epistimonikos, Clinicaltrials.gov, and included all randomized controlled trials published after 1993 that were directed at RRBs in patients with ASD of all ages. We extracted the relevant data from the published studies with a predefined data extraction form and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were change in restricted/repetitive behavior. We performed a meta-analysis using the random effect model and included studies with given mean and standard deviation. This study is registered with PROSPERO number CRD42018092660). RESULTS: We identified 14 randomized controlled trials that met initial inclusion criteria. After closer inspection, nine trials - involving 552 patients in total - were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis found no significant difference between medications (including fluvoxamine, risperidone, fluoxetine, citalopram, oxytocin, N-Acetylcysteine, buspirone) and placebo in the treatment of RRBs in ASD (P = 0.20). Similarly, the sub-group meta-analysis also showed no significant difference between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRIs) and placebo in the treatment of RRBs in ASD (P = 0.68). There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis finds little support for the routine use of medications to treat restricted/repetitive behaviors in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Further research of large, balanced trials with precise assessment tools and long-term follow-up are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol is registered in PROSPERO (Reference number: CRD42018092660).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".