Evidence Hub

Subjective and objective sleep alterations in medication-naïve children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kim H, Kim JH, Kim J, Kim JY, Cortese S, Smith L, Koyanagi A, Radua J et al.

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2023

1,220 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to summarize the evidence on sleep alterations in medication-naïve children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases from inception through March 22, 2021. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021243881). Any observational study was included that enrolled medication-naïve children and adolescents with ASD and compared objective (actigraphy and polysomnography) or subjective sleep parameters with typically developing (TD) counterparts. We extracted relevant data such as the study design and outcome measures. The methodological quality was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model by pooling effect sizes as Hedges' g. To assess publication bias, Egger's test and p-curve analysis were done. A priori planned meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed to identify potential moderators.

Results: Out of 4277 retrieved references, 16 studies were eligible with 981 ASD patients and 1220 TD individuals. The analysis of objective measures showed that medication-naïve ASD patients had significantly longer sleep latency (Hedges' g 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.26 to 0.92), reduced sleep efficiency (Hedges' g -0.58; 95% CI -0.87 to -0.28), time in bed (Hedges' g -0.64; 95% CI -1.02 to -0.26) and total sleep time (Hedges' g -0.64; 95% CI -1.01 to -0.27). The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,220 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free