4.4 Review

Differences in food consumption and nutritional intake between children with autism spectrum disorders and typically developing children: A meta-analysis

Journal

AUTISM
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 1079-1095

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1362361318794179

Keywords

autism spectrum disorder; children; food consumption; food selectivity; meta-analysis; nutrition; feeding; nutritional intake; nutritional status

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Children with autism spectrum disorders show higher food selectivity, which restricts consumption of some foods and may cause nutritional deficiencies. The aims of this meta-analysis are to determine the overall differences in nutritional intake and food consumption between children with autism spectrum disorder and control (typical development) children, as well as determine the extent to which the nutritional intake and food consumption of autistic children comply with the dietary recommendations. Children with autism spectrum disorder consume less protein (standardized mean difference = -0.27, 95% confidence interval (-0.45, -0.08)), calcium (-0.56 (-0.95, -0.16)), phosphorus (-0.23 (-0.41, -0.04)), selenium (-0.29 (-0.44, -0.13)), vitamin D (-0.34 (-0.57, -0.11)), thiamine (-0.17 (-0.29, -0.05)), riboflavin (-0.25 (-0.45, -0.05)) and vitamin B12 (-0.52 (-0.95, -0.09)) and more polyunsaturated fat acid (0.27 (0.11, 0.44)) and vitamin E (0.28 (0.03, 0.54)) than controls. Autistic children also consume less omega-3 (-0.83 (-1.53, -0.16)) and more fruit (0.35 (0.12, 0.59)) and vegetables (0.35 (0.09, 0.61)) than control children; however, these results must be considered with care due to the low number of studies included in the analysis and the high heterogeneity. The results also suggest a lower intake of calcium, vitamin D and dairy and a higher intake of fruit, vegetables, protein, phosphorus, selenium, thiamine, riboflavin and vitamin B12 than recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available