Acupuncture and Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Autism is characterized by persistent difficulties in communication and social interaction, and repetitive, stereotyped behaviours, interests and activities (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5)). There is no standard, single, most effective treatment, nor is there a cure for autism. An estimated 81% of parents have tried complementary therapies for their children with autism. Research involving acupuncture for autism shows promise, but fear of needles may be a barrier for many children. Since laser stimulation of acupuncture points is less invasive and potentially more acceptable to children and families, a systematic review was conducted to summarize the evidence on laser acupuncture for pediatric autism. A qualitative study explored healthcare provider awareness and views of acupuncture and laser acupuncture for children with autism. Methods: The first study was a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of laser acupuncture on children with autism. The second study was an interpretive descriptive qualitative study with conventional healthcare providers in disciplines that provide services for children with autism. We collected data on: (1) knowledge and views about acupuncture, including laser acupuncture, and (2) perceived reasons why ⅱhealthcare providers may or may not recommend acupuncture for children with autism. Results: A total of 13 healthcare providers from Alberta, Canada - physicians, occupational therapists, psychologists, speech-language pathologists and physiotherapists - participated in the qualitative study. Most professionals had not considered acupuncture due to a lack of awareness and knowledge, but had a positive and open attitude in exploring its use and evidence as an adjunct therapy and to help meet existing therapeutic gaps. The systematic review identified only two small randomized controlled trials (RCTs), both of which reported positive effects, however, the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low to very low due to the small number of studies and methodological limitations. Both RCTs reported no adverse effects from laser acupuncture. The systematic review concluded there was inadequate evidence to confirm or refute the efficacy or safety of laser acupuncture at this time. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals in Alberta are open and curious about acupuncture, particularly laser acupuncture, and its evidence for children with autism. Research on laser acupuncture is in its infancy, and it is premature to support or refute its use at this time. Larger, more rigorous studies would help inform health care providers who are interested in laser acupuncture for children with autism. ABSTRACT Background: Autism is characterized by persistent difficulties in communication and social interaction, and repetitive, stereotyped behaviours, interests and activities (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5)). There is no standard, single, most effective treatment, nor is there a cure for autism. An estimated 81% of parents have tried complementary therapies for their children with autism. Research involving acupuncture for autism shows promise, but fear of needles may be a barrier for many children. Since laser stimulation of acupuncture points is less invasive and potentially more acceptable to children and families, a systematic review was conducted to summarize the evidence on laser acupuncture for pediatric autism. A qualitative study explored healthcare provider awareness and views of acupuncture and laser acupuncture for children with autism. Methods: The first study was a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of laser acupuncture on children with autism. The second study was an interpretive descriptive qualitative study with conventional healthcare providers in disciplines that provide services for children with autism. We collected data on: (1) knowledge and views about acupuncture, including laser acupuncture, and (2) perceived reasons why ⅱhealthcare providers may or may not recommend acupuncture for children with autism. Results: A total of 13 healthcare providers from Alberta, Canada - physicians, occupational therapists, psychologists, speech-language pathologists and physiotherapists - participated in the qualitative study. Most professionals had not considered acupuncture due to a lack of awareness and knowledge, but had a positive and open attitude in exploring its use and evidence as an adjunct therapy and to help meet existing therapeutic gaps. The systematic review identified only two small randomized controlled trials (RCTs), both of which reported positive effects, however, the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low to very low due to the small number of studies and methodological limitations. Both RCTs reported no adverse effects from laser acupuncture. The systematic review concluded there was inadequate evidence to confirm or refute the efficacy or safety of laser acupuncture at this time. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals in Alberta are open and curious about acupuncture, particularly laser acupuncture, and its evidence for children with autism. Research on laser acupuncture is in its infancy, and it is premature to support or refute its use at this time. Larger, more rigorous studies would help inform health care providers who are interested in laser acupuncture for children with autism.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".