Autism intervention meta-analysis of early childhood studies (Project AIM): updated systematic review and secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the breadth and quality of evidence supporting commonly recommended early childhood autism interventions and their estimated effects on developmental outcomes. DESIGN: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis (autism intervention meta-analysis; Project AIM). DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted in November 2021 (updating a search done in November 2017) of the following databases and registers: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with full text, Education Source, Educational Administration Abstracts, ERIC, Medline, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and SocINDEX with full text, Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Any controlled group study testing the effects of any non-pharmacological intervention on any outcome in young autistic children younger than 8 years. REVIEW METHODS: Newly identified studies were integrated into the previous dataset and were coded for participant, intervention, and outcome characteristics. Interventions were categorized by type of approach (such as behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention, and technology based), and outcomes were categorized by domain (such as social communication, adaptive behavior, play, and language). Risks of bias were evaluated following guidance from Cochrane. Effects were estimated for all intervention and outcome types with sufficient contributing data, stratified by risk of bias, using robust variance estimation to account for intercorrelation of effects within studies and subgroups. RESULTS: The search yielded 289 reports of 252 studies, representing 13 304 participants and effects for 3291 outcomes. When contributing effects were restricted to those from randomized controlled trials, significant summary effects were estimated for behavioral interventions on social emotional or challenging behavior outcomes (Hedges' g=0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 1.06; P=0.02), developmental interventions on social communication (0.28, 0.12 to 0.44; P=0.003); naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions on adaptive behavior (0.23, 0.02 to 0.43; P=0.03), language (0.16, 0.01 to 0.31; P=0.04), play (0.19, 0.02 to 0.36; P=0.03), social communication (0.35, 0.23 to 0.47; P<0.001), and measures of diagnostic characteristics of autism (0.38, 0.17 to 0.59; P=0.002); and technology based interventions on social communication (0.33, 0.02 to 0.64; P=0.04) and social emotional or challenging behavior outcomes (0.57, 0.04 to 1.09; P=0.04). When effects were further restricted to exclude caregiver or teacher report outcomes, significant effects were estimated only for developmental interventions on social communication (0.31, 0.13 to 0.49; P=0.003) and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions on social communication (0.36, 0.23 to 0.49; P<0.001) and measures of diagnostic characteristics of autism (0.44, 0.20 to 0.68; P=0.002). When effects were then restricted to exclude those at high risk of detection bias, only one significant summary effect was estimated-naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions on measures of diagnostic characteristics of autism (0.30, 0.03 to 0.57; P=0.03). Adverse events were poorly monitored, but possibly common. CONCLUSION: The available evidence on interventions to support young autistic children has approximately doubled in four years. Some evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that behavioral interventions improve caregiver perception of challenging behavior and child social emotional functioning, and that technology based interventions support proximal improvements in specific social communication and social emotional skills. Evidence also shows that developmental interventions improve social communication in interactions with caregivers, and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions improve core challenges associated with autism, particularly difficulties with social communication. However, potential benefits of these interventions cannot be weighed against the potential for adverse effects owing to inadequate monitoring and reporting.

Understanding the Effects of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions: A Project AIM Meta-analysis.

We examined the quality of evidence supporting the effects of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NBDIs) for facilitating change in young children with autism. We also investigated whether effects varied as a function of specific features of the intervention, samples, and outcomes measured. Twenty-seven studies testing the effects of NDBIs were extracted from data collected for the Autism Intervention Meta-analysis (Project AIM), a comprehensive meta-analysis of group design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for children with autism aged 0-8 years. We extracted effect sizes for 454 outcomes from these studies for use in meta-regression analyses testing associations between intervention effects and mean participant chronological age, language age, autism symptomatology, percentage of sample reported as male, cumulative intervention intensity, interventionist, outcome boundedness, outcome proximity, and risk of parent/teacher training correlated measurement error. The extant literature on NDBIs documents effects on social communication, language, play, and cognitive outcomes. However, our confidence in the positive and significant summary effects for these domains is somewhat limited by methodological concerns. Intervention effects were larger for context-bound outcomes (relative to generalized), and for proximal outcomes (relative to distal). Our results indicate that NDBIs have promise as an approach for supporting development for some, but not all of the core and related features of autism in early childhood. Confidence in summary effect estimates is limited by study quality concerns, particularly an overreliance on measures subject to high detection bias. The results of this review support the use of proximity and boundedness as indicators of the limits of intervention effects. LAY SUMMARY: Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions may increase language, social communication, play skills, and cognition in young children with autism, but these increases are largest for skills directly targeted by the intervention, and in contexts that are similar to that of the intervention. These conclusions are tempered by some concerns regarding research design across the studies that have been conducted to date. Autism Res 2021, 14: 817-834. © 2021 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Project AIM: Autism intervention meta-analysis for studies of young children.

In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of group design studies of nonpharmacological early interventions designed for young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), we report summary effects across 7 early intervention types (behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention [NDBI], TEACCH, sensory-based, animal-assisted, and technology-based), and 15 outcome categories indexing core and related ASD symptoms. A total of 1,615 effect sizes were gathered from 130 independent participant samples. A total of 6,240 participants, who ranged in age from 0-8 years, are represented across the studies. We synthesized effects within intervention and outcome type using a robust variance estimation approach to account for the nesting of effect sizes within studies. We also tracked study quality indicators, and report an additional set of summary effect sizes that restrict included studies to those meeting prespecified quality indicators. Finally, we conducted moderator analyses to evaluate whether summary effects across intervention types were larger for proximal as compared with distal effects, and for context-bound as compared to generalized effects. We found that when study quality indicators were not taken into account, significant positive effects were found for behavioral, developmental, and NDBI intervention types. When effect size estimation was limited to studies with randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, evidence of positive summary effects existed only for developmental and NDBI intervention types. This was also the case when outcomes measured by parent report were excluded. Finally, when effect estimation was limited to RCT designs and to outcomes for which there was no risk of detection bias, no intervention types showed significant effects on any outcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).