Commentary: What conflicts of interest tell us about autism intervention research-a commentary on Bottema-Beutel et al. (2020)

Bottema-Beutel, Crowley, Sandbank, and Woynaroski (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,2020) have performed a Herculean and invaluable task in their investigation of conflicts of interest (COIs) in nonpharmacological early autism intervention research. Drawing on a meta-analysis of 150 articles reporting group designs, they found COIs in 105 (70%), only 6 (5.7%) of which had fully accurate COI statements. Most reports had no COI statements, but among the 48 (32%) which did, the majority of those declaring no COIs had detectable COIs (23 of 30; 77%). Thus, COI reporting in the literature examined is routinely missing, misleading, and/or incomplete; accurate reporting is the exception rather than the rule. That 120 of the 150 reports were published in 2010 or later, compared to 6 pre-2000, tells us this is not about practices confined to decades past. Instead, it reflects and is a telling indictment of established standards in autism intervention research.

Automated summary

The study found that conflict of interest reporting in nonpharmacological early autism intervention research is often missing, misleading, and incomplete, with accurate reporting being the exception. This reflects and criticizes established standards in autism intervention research.