Trajectory research in children with an autism diagnosis: A scoping review.
Stephen J Gentles, Elise C Ng-Cordell, Michelle C Hunsche and 9 others
PMID 37194194WHAT IT FOUND
This review maps how autism research tracks child development over time.
It found inconsistent methods and sample sizes, with many studies failing to report results by child age. This makes it hard to compare findings or determine what typical developmental paths look like for specific outcomes.
Key findings
01Most included studies did not report trajectory results in terms of child age, limiting comparability.
02There is substantial inconsistency in the statistical methods used, with group-based approaches requiring larger samples than traditional methods.
03Research gaps exist for specific outcomes like adaptive functioning and restricted repetitive behaviours in older children and adolescents.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review excluded non-published sources like dissertations, which may miss some relevant studies. It excluded studies that focused primarily on adults, even if they included child data, potentially missing longitudinal links to adulthood. The stakeholder engagement was limited to two individuals and did not reach the level of co-creation, so their perspectives may not represent the wider community. As a scoping review, it did not assess the quality or risk of bias of the included studies, only their characteristics.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the inconsistencies in statistical methods and age-reporting as evidence that developmental trajectories in autism are unpredictable or chaotic. These inconsistencies reflect methodological choices in the research literature, not necessarily the nature of the condition itself. The review maps the evidence landscape; it does not provide clinical prognostic data.