The prevalence of autism in Nagoya, Japan: A total population study

Abstract

The prevalence rate of autism has been reported as 0.04% to 0.05%, but one recent study in Japan found prevalence of 0.16%. The authors have been involved in routine well-child medical examinations at 18 months of age, at the Midori Public Health Center in Nagoya. A statistical survey of diagnoses was made from April 1979 to March 1984 for the purpose of conducting an epidemiological study of autism. Of 12,263 children examined, 168 were identified as having developmental problems and, of these, 139 underwent a second examination. Autism was diagnosed in 16 of these children and a category called "autism suspected" was defined in an additional 10 of these 139 children. The 16 cases of autism gave a minimum prevalence of 0.13%, three times the usually reported rate. The validity of the higher prevalence rates is discussed.

Screening for Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children Aged 14–15 Months. II: Population Screening with the Early Screening of Autistic Traits Questionnaire (ESAT). Design and General Findings

“…In a Japanese study by Sugiyama and Abe (1989) it was found that especially toddlers that failed a developmental check up at age 18 months, and whose parents refused further investigations, did show more developmental problems at 3-year follow-up than the children who did participate in further investigations. These results would suggest that the children who did not participate in the ESAT test might have had more serious disorders.…”

Parental concerns, socioeconomic status, and the risk of autism spectrum conditions in a population-based study

“…It also suggested that hesitation among parents could be reflected in the delay between screening and further examination of children. Sugiyama's study in Japan found that toddlers who failed a developmental check up at 18 months, and whose parents refused further investigations, showed more developmental problems at the 3-year follow up than the children who did participate in further investigations (Sugiyama & Abe, 1989). The present study included questions on parental concerns in screening in a general population in the UK.…”

A Parent-Report Instrument for Identifying One-Year-Olds at Risk for an Eventual Diagnosis of Autism: The First Year Inventory

“…We reviewed findings from six main sources: retrospective reports about the infancy of children who have received a diagnosis of autism (e.g., Dahlgren & Gillberg, 1989;Greenspan & Wieder, 1997;Lord, 1995;Stone & Lemanek, 1990); case studies of infants later diagnosed with autism (Dawson, Osterling, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 2000;Sparling, 1991); analysis of early videotapes of infants eventually diagnosed with autism, including results from extensive work in our own laboratory (Baranek, 1999;Baranek et al, 2005;Eriksson & de Chateau, 1992;Osterling & Dawson, 1994); screening studies of high-risk clinical samples (Robins et al, 2001;Stone, Coonrod, & Ousley, 2000); prospective studies of infants who had an older sibling with autism (e.g., Zwaigenbaum et al, 2005); and prospective studies of a community sample (e.g., Baird et al, 2000;Baron-Cohen et al, 1996;Gillberg et al, 1990;Suqiama & Abe, 1989;Wetherby et al, 2004).…”