(1) Background: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is highly associated with various somatic conditions that can be masked by the core symptoms of ASD and thus complicate the diagnosis. Identifying co-occurring somatic disorders is critical for providing effective healthcare and social services for ASD populations and influences their long-term outcomes. A systematic assessment of co-occurring somatic conditions is essential during this ASD diagnostic process. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the organization and content of the initial somatic assessment (ISA). (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the ASD diagnostic process published between January 2005 and December 2019 in English and French and performed an appraisal following the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation, second edition (AGREE-II). (3) Results: We selected 14 CPGs that were heterogeneous in quality, with methodological scores between 32.3 and 91.9. Clinical examinations are the first step in the ISA, and the participation of pediatric, neuropediatric, and genetic specialists was highly recommended by the majority of the CPGs. The recommendations included hearing screening tests (10/14), visual examinations (8/14), and systematic genetic investigations (4/14). The CPGs also described additional investigations that should be conducted based on numerous warning signs. (4) Conclusions: Screening for consensual international warning signs is necessary to perform a comprehensive and systematic ISA during the ASD diagnostic process. A \"referral form\" could be used to guide clinicians and improve the coordination process. This tool may reinforce epidemiological data on co-occurring somatic disorders in patients with ASD.

BACKGROUND: Outcome reporting bias in vaccine studies is a widespread problem among all researchers who have a tendency to report selective results and conclusions that support their beliefs and values or those of sponsoring agencies. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, this bias surfaced through the unprecedented proliferation of conflicting vaccine studies. Many researchers strongly recommend and report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. Those researchers who embrace the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccines, in general, are often dismissive of other researchers who present views that differ from medical orthodoxy and oppose medical consensus.
METHODS: The aim of this analysis is to critically evaluate seven vaccine studies using qualitative and/or quantitative approaches to identify outcome reporting bias and assess its potential impact on the stated conclusions that align with medical consensus. Four studies claim to have found no association between autism and (a) blood levels of mercury, (b) measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and (c) thimerosal-containing vaccines. Three other studies claim no association exists between infant mortality rate and the number of vaccine doses, universal varicella vaccination and herpes zoster, and pandemic influenza vaccines and fetal losses.
RESULTS: The presence of outcome reporting bias and independent reanalysis demonstrated an impact on both the direction and magnitude of the observed effect - raising questions concerning the robustness of the original study design and conclusions and challenging the current medical consensus. Medical consensus has exonerated vaccines as having any causal relationship to autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), yet no other reasonable cause has been proposed. Medical consensus attributes significant ASD increases to better case ascertainment and broadened clinical diagnosis. According to 2018 data, an estimated 1 in 44 eight-year-olds has been identified with ASD. From 1990 to 2019, there have been an estimated two million new cases of ASD in the US, with lifetime social costs exceeding $7 trillion (in 2019 dollars). Can perpetuating medical consensus impede the advancement of public health? Or has it already done so?
CONCLUSIONS:  Conflicts of interest (e.g., financial) that abound between health regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry impact what is ultimately reckoned as medical consensus. Outcome reporting bias that is inherent to all researchers to some degree, obscures medical and scientific truth. Advancement of public health requires that researchers have integrity and an openness and willingness to collaborate to resolve contradictory findings. In fact, it is usually through meticulous, rigorous, scientific investigation of contradictory findings that medical science has advanced and contributed to improvements in public health - since medical consensus and orthodoxy can be incorrect.

BACKGROUND: There is a large gap between the needs of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the currently available services in Saudi Arabia. Services are often difficult to access, inconsistent in quality, incomplete, unsatisfactory, and costly. As such, there is a national need for expert consensus on the appropriate standards for the assessment and management of children on the autism spectrum.
METHODS: A guideline development group (GDC) was formed by professionals representing all related specialties and institutions involved in the management of individuals on the autism spectrum in Saudi Arabia. They met on a regular basis over 21 months. The guideline development process consisted of five steps starting from reviewing existing guidelines and ending with discussing and writing this manuscript. A formal voting process was utilized and recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached.
RESULTS: There was consensus on the following: A specialized diagnostic assessment needs to be carried out by an experienced multidisciplinary team for children referred to assess for ASD. They should be assessed for medical etiology, their behavioral history carefully reviewed, and symptoms directly observed. Longitudinal assessments are encouraged to reflect the effects of symptoms on the individual\'s ability to function while with their family, among peers, and in school settings. An additional formal assessment of language, cognitive, and adaptive abilities as well as sensory status is essential to complete the diagnostic process. Interventions should be individualized, developmentally appropriate, and intensive, with performance data relevant to intervention goals to evaluate and adjust interventions. Target symptoms must be identified to address and develop monitoring systems to track change.
CONCLUSIONS: ASD is a complex condition with widely varying clinical manifestations, thus requiring evaluation and intervention by a range of professionals working in coordination. Behavioral and environmental interventions are the key to optimal outcomes, in conjunction with medications when indicated for specific symptoms. Parental involvement in interventions is vital to sustaining therapeutic gains.

Individuals with co-occurring hyperactivity disorder/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can have complex presentations that may complicate diagnosis and treatment. There are established guidelines with regard to the identification and treatment of ADHD and ASD as independent conditions. However, ADHD and ASD were not formally recognised diagnostically as co-occurring conditions until the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5) was published in 2013. Hence, awareness and understanding of both conditions when they co-occur is less established and there is little guidance in the clinical literature. This has led to uncertainty among healthcare practitioners when working with children, young people and adults who present with co-existing ADHD and ASD. The United Kingdom ADHD Partnership (UKAP) therefore convened a meeting of professional experts that aimed to address this gap and reach expert consensus on the topic that will aid healthcare practitioners and allied professionals when working with this complex and vulnerable population.
UK experts from multiple disciplines in the fields of ADHD and ASD convened in London in December 2017. The meeting provided the opportunity to address the complexities of ADHD and ASD as a co-occurring presentation from different perspectives and included presentations, discussion and group work. The authors considered the clinical challenges of working with this complex group of individuals, producing a consensus for a unified approach when working with male and female, children, adolescents and adults with co-occurring ADHD and ASD. This was written up, circulated and endorsed by all authors.
The authors reached a consensus of practical recommendations for working across the lifespan with males and females with ADHD and ASD. Consensus was reached on topics of (1) identification and assessment using rating scales, clinical diagnostic interviews and objective supporting assessments; outcomes of assessment, including standards of clinical reporting; (2) non-pharmacological interventions and care management, including psychoeducation, carer interventions/carer training, behavioural/environmental and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) approaches; and multi-agency liaison, including educational interventions, career advice, occupational skills and training, and (3) pharmacological treatments.
The guidance and practice recommendations (Tables 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10) will support healthcare practitioners and allied professionals to meet the needs of this complex group from a multidisciplinary perspective. Further research is needed to enhance our understanding of the diagnosis, treatment and management of individuals presenting with comorbid ADHD and ASD.

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of guidelines and routines used nationwide when children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are taken care of and examined in a radiology department during a peri-radiographic process.
A nationwide survey was compiled and distributed to 94 radiology departments throughout Sweden, i.e. those performing more than 100 000 radiographic examinations annually. The survey was designed as a web questionnaire with seven questions on possible guidelines and/or routines for the departments when preparing and taking care of children with ASD in conjunction with a radiographic procedure. The data were scrutinized, using descriptive statistics.
In total, 86 radiology departments responded to the survey (response rate 92%). Of those departments, 40 did not examine children with ASD. None of the departments included in the study had existing guidelines underpinning the routines when preparing and performing radiographic examinations for children diagnosed with ASD. A few departments (n = 8) would set aside more time for the procedure if it were known in advance that the child to be examined had been diagnosed with ASD. Also, some departments (n = 7) had radiographers who were more experienced in the care of children who would be appointed to perform examinations for children with ASD.
It is suggested that guidelines should be developed in order to increase interaction in a supportive way and decrease anxiety during the peri-radiographic process with children with ASD.