How Useful Are Instrumental Examinations in Newly Diagnosed Children with ASD? Insights from Real-World Practice

Abstract

Background: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition with a complex and multifactorial etiology, diagnosed on the basis of clinical criteria. Medical comorbidities are common and often lead to instrumental examinations; however, the clinical utility of routinely performing such tests remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the practical value of instrumental assessments in ASD by examining both prescribing behaviors and the prevalence of abnormal findings in a sample of autistic children. Methods: A combined-method approach was adopted: (1) an online survey of child neuropsychiatrists across the Piedmont region (Italy) explored current attitudes and practices regarding instrumental testing in children with ASD; (2) a retrospective cross-sectional analysis examined the frequency and clinical relevance of abnormal findings in ASD patients who underwent comprehensive testing at a tertiary hospital in Turin. Results: The survey showed that 85.7% of centers follow specific protocols for instrumental examinations, though practices vary considerably. Genetic testing and blood analyses are routinely performed, while EEG, MRI, audiometry, and metabolic screenings are generally based on clinical indication. In the retrospective study, instrumental tests revealed a low rate of clinically significant findings. Clinically relevant genetic abnormalities were detected in 7.9% of CGH-array tests. EEG abnormalities were seen in 9% of cases, though 57% had nonspecific or unclear results. Among biochemical parameters, notable findings included altered lipid profiles (45%), ferritin deficiency (24%), and anemia (12.5%) and no metabolic disorders were identified. Discussion: These findings highlight substantial variability in clinical practice and suggest that while some instrumental tests may provide valuable insights, routine screening is often of limited benefit. The high prevalence of nonspecific findings reinforces the need for careful clinical correlation, emphasizing the importance of balancing comprehensive assessment against the risks of over-testing and challenges in interpreting results. Future research should focus on developing evidence-based guidelines for instrumental assessments in this population.