Pain Experiences of People Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Case–Control Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is one of the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorders and is characterized by compromised social interactions, reduced verbal communication, stereotyped repetitive behaviors, restricted interests, and sensory abnormalities. Yet absent from the knowledge base is information about sensory abnormalities related to pain experiences. Exploring the pain experiences of people with ASD may provide occupational therapy practitioners with a baseline to determine areas of need and effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to summarize current evidence from case-control studies comparing sensory abnormalities with regard to pain experiences of people diagnosed and not diagnosed with ASD. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of the CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE (PubMed), OTseeker, and Web of Science databases, using MeSH terms and broad keywords. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: A search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. FINDINGS: A total of 27 case-control studies involving 865 people with ASD and 864 control participants were included. Several methods were used to explore pain experiences, such as threshold detection or pain threshold. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The results indicate that people with ASD may have an abnormal sensory experience with regard to pain sensitivity. Occupational therapy practitioners should develop an intervention to focus on pain. What This Article Adds: This study adds to the body of literature indicating that people with ASD have sensory abnormalities with regard to pain experiences. Results highlight the need for occupational therapy interventions to focus on pain experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".