BackgroundMuch controversy exists regarding the clinical efficacy of behavioural and developmental interventions for improving the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of behavioural and developmental interventions for ASD.Methods and FindingsComprehensive searches were conducted in 22 electronic databases through May 2007. Further information was obtained through hand searching journals, searching reference lists, databases of theses and dissertations, and contacting experts in the field. Experimental and observational analytic studies were included if they were written in English and reported the efficacy of any behavioural or developmental intervention for individuals with ASD. Two independent reviewers made the final study selection, extracted data, and reached consensus on study quality. Results were summarized descriptively and, where possible, meta-analyses of the study results were conducted. One-hundred-and-one studies at predominantly high risk of bias that reported inconsistent results across various interventions were included in the review. Meta-analyses of three controlled clinical trials showed that Lovaas treatment was superior to special education on measures of adaptive behaviour, communication and interaction, comprehensive language, daily living skills, expressive language, overall intellectual functioning and socialization. High-intensity Lovaas was superior to low-intensity Lovaas on measures of intellectual functioning in two retrospective cohort studies. Pooling the results of two randomized controlled trials favoured developmental approaches based on initiative interaction compared to contingency interaction in the amount of time spent in stereotyped behaviours and distal social behaviour, but the effect sizes were not clinically significant. No statistically significant differences were found for: Lovaas versus special education for non-verbal intellectual functioning; Lovaas versus Developmental Individual-difference relationship-based intervention for communication skills; computer assisted instruction versus no treatment for facial expression recognition; and TEACCH versus standard care for imitation skills and eye-hand integration.ConclusionsWhile this review suggests that Lovaas may improve some core symptoms of ASD compared to special education, these findings are based on pooling of a few, methodologically weak studies with few participants and relatively short-term follow-up. As no definitive behavioural or developmental intervention improves all symptoms for all individuals with ASD, it is recommended that clinical management be guided by individual needs and availability of resources.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed. Despite a statistically significant improvement in the methodological quality over time, it is imperative that future trials on meditation be rigorous in design, execution, analysis, and the reporting of results.

Background: Head injuries related to bicycle use are common and can be serious. They can be prevented or reduced in severity with helmet use; however, education has resulted in modest helmet use in most developed countries. Helmet legislation has been proposed as a method to increase helmet wearing; while this social intervention is thought to be effective, no systematic review has been performed. Objectives: This review evaluates the scientific evidence for helmet use following legislation to identify the effectiveness of legislative interventions to increase bicycle helmet use among all age groups. Search strategy: Comprehensive searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, British Education Index, LILACS Database, TRIS (Transport Research Information Service), the grey literature, reference lists, and communication with authors was performed to identify eligible studies. Selection criteria: Eligible studies for this review were community based investigations including cohort studies, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies, non-equivalent control group studies Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers extracted the data regarding the percentage of helmet use before and after legislation from each study. Individual and pooled odds ratios were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals. Main results: Out of 86 prescreened articles, 25 were potentially relevant to the topic and 11 were finally included in the review. Of 11 studies, eight were published articles, two were published reports, and one was an unpublished article. One additional survey was incorporated following personal communication with the author. While the baseline rate of helmet use among these studies varied between 4% and 59%, after legislation this range changed to 37% and 91%. Helmet wearing proportions increased less than 10% in one study, 10-30% in four studies, and more than 30% in seven studies. While the effectiveness of bicycle helmet legislation varied (n = 11 studies; OR range: 1.2-22), all studies demonstrated higher proportions of helmet use following legislation, particularly when the law was targeted to a specific age group. Conclusions: Legislation increased helmet use among cyclists, particularly younger age groups and those with low pre-intervention helmet wearing proportions. These results support legislative interventions in populations without helmet legislation.

Aim  A wide range of psychosocial interventions for the treatment of individuals with autism‐spectrum disorders (ASDs) have been evaluated in systematic reviews. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for ASD. Method  Comprehensive searches were conducted in 25 bibliographic databases, relevant journals and reference lists up to May 2007. Studies included were systematic reviews on any psychosocial intervention for individuals with ASDs. Two reviewers independently assessed study relevance and quality. Results  Thirty systematic reviews were included. The majority of reviews evaluated interventions based on behavioural theory (n=9) or communication‐focused (n=7) therapies. Positive intervention outcomes were reported in the majority of the reviews. Methodological quality of the reviews was generally poor. Interpretation  The reviews reported positive outcomes for many of the interventions, suggesting that some form of treatment is favourable over no treatment. However, there is little evidence for the relative effectiveness of these treatment options. Many of the systematic reviews had methodological weaknesses that make them vulnerable to bias. There is a need for further systematic reviews that adhere to strict scientific methods and for primary studies that make direct comparisons between different treatment options.