↓ Skip to main content

How Useful Is Electroencephalography in the Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorders and the Delineation of Subtypes: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Useful Is Electroencephalography in the Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorders and the Delineation of Subtypes: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oana Gurau, William J. Bosl, Charles R. Newton

Abstract

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are thought to be associated with abnormal neural connectivity. Presently, neural connectivity is a theoretical construct that cannot be easily measured. Research in network science and time series analysis suggests that neural network structure, a marker of neural activity, can be measured with electroencephalography (EEG). EEG can be quantified by different methods of analysis to potentially detect brain abnormalities. The aim of this review is to examine evidence for the utility of three methods of EEG signal analysis in the ASD diagnosis and subtype delineation. We conducted a review of literature in which 40 studies were identified and classified according to the principal method of EEG analysis in three categories: functional connectivity analysis, spectral power analysis, and information dynamics. All studies identified significant differences between ASD patients and non-ASD subjects. However, due to high heterogeneity in the results, generalizations could not be inferred and none of the methods alone are currently useful as a new diagnostic tool. The lack of studies prevented the analysis of these methods as tools for ASD subtypes delineation. These results confirm EEG abnormalities in ASD, but as yet not sufficient to help in the diagnosis. Future research with larger samples and more robust study designs could allow for higher sensitivity and consistency in characterizing ASD, paving the way for developing new means of diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 34 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 30 20%
Psychology 29 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 10%
Computer Science 13 8%
Engineering 9 6%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 40 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,143,672
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#1,298
of 12,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,467
of 325,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#12
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.