Our ratings are designed to tell you what scientific evidence has been published in peer-reviewed journals that supports or does not support the effectiveness of a particular intervention for use with autistic people.
The rating for each intervention is based on the quality and the number of scientific research studies on that intervention.
The greater the number of high quality research studies which support the intervention, the higher the number of ticks.
The greater the number of high quality research studies which do not support the intervention, the higher the number of crosses.
When we have been been unable to identify any research studies on a given intervention, this does not prove that the intervention is ineffective. It simply shows that we have been unable to identify any relevant studies from a range of relevant databases and other sources
We are aware that this approach may not reflect the views of all our readers, but only in this way can we be sure that the findings we report are based on the most reliable, valid and unbiased data available at the current time. We may of course modify the rating for an intervention when new scientific data on that intervention are published.
Please note that our ratings do not constitute a recommendation about whether or not an intervention is suitable for a particular autistic person. Each individual on the autism spectrum is different and what works for one individual may not work for another.
Very strong, positive evidence
Majority of studies showing significant positive effects
Strong, positive evidence
The majority of these studies show significant positive effects
Limited, positive evidence
Majority of studies showing significant positive effects
Insufficient/Mixed evidence
Some Grade B/C studies but findings inconsistent or Grade D or < 3 Grade C studies only.
No evidence
We have been unable to identify any studies of this intervention being used to help people with autism spectrum disorders published in peer-reviewed journals
Some negative evidence
Majority of studies showing significant negative effects
Strong negative evidence
Majority of studies showing significant negative effects
Very strong negative evidence
Majority of studies showing significant negative effects
Not Applicable
It is not possible to provide a rank for this intervention. This is usually because the intervention described, such as speech and language therapy, incorporates a wide range of other interventions, methods and techniques.
Evidence of harmful effects.
Objective evidence indicating significant adverse/harmful effects.
Methodologically rigorous studies with adequate statistical power
Well conducted controlled trials. This includes
a) Non-randomised control group study, where there is adequate statistical power and where the study is conducted by researchers independent of the intervention
b) Randomised control trial which does not meet the criteria for Grade A, for example, where there is inadequate statistical power
a) Case series study, where there is a sufficient number of participants, where there is robust statistical analysis, for example, regression analysis.
b) Staggered or ABA multiple baseline study where there is a sufficient number of participants.
c) Randomised control trial or control group study, crossover/reversal/withdrawal study which does not meet the criteria for Grade B
a) Studies which do not meet the criteria for other grades, for example, case series where there is insufficient number of participants, or where there is no robust statistical analysis.
Such studies and trials to be published in English-speaking peer-reviewed journals.