4.5 Review

What Is the Male-to-Female Ratio in Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.03.013

关键词

autism spectrum disorder; male-to-female ratio; sex difference; meta-analysis; epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To derive the first systematically calculated estimate of the relative proportion of boys and girls with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) through a meta-analysis of prevalence studies conducted since the introduction of the DSM-IV and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched, and study quality was rated using a risk of-bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used. The pooled outcome measurement was the male-to-female odds ratio (MFOR), namely the odds of being male in the group with ASD compared with the non-ASD group. In effect, this is the ASD male-to-female ratio, controlling for the male-to-female ratio among participants without ASD. Results: Fifty-four studies were analyzed, with 13,784,284 participants, of whom 53,712 had ASD (43,972 boys and 9,740 girls). The overall pooled MFOR was 4.20 (95% CI 3.84-4.60), but there was very substantial between-study variability (I-2 = 90.9%). High-quality studies had a lower MFOR (3.32; 95% CI 2.88-3.84). Studies that screened the general population to identify participants regardless of whether they already had an ASD diagnosis showed a lower MFOR (3.25; 95% CI 2.93-3.62) than studies that only ascertained participants with a preexisting ASD diagnosis (MFOR 4.56; 95% CI 4.10-5.07). Conclusion: Of children meeting criteria for ASD, the true male-to-female ratio is not 4:1, as is often assumed; rather, it is closer to 3:1. There appears to be a diagnostic gender bias, meaning that girls who meet criteria for ASD are at disproportionate risk of not receiving a clinical diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据