Autism and pervasive developmental disorders: concepts and diagnostic issues.

Rutter et al. (1987) wrote a narrative review about autism labels. They mapped how doctors told autism, PDD-NOS, and Asperger apart.

The paper listed fights over wording, test items, and where to draw the line. It called for cleaner rules and better checklists.

The review showed the field was split. Some clinics used one label, others used three. No gold tool existed.

The authors warned that messy criteria would slow both science and services.

Tsai et al. (2014) later weighed 162 studies and pushed back. They said the single DSM-5 autism lump hides real differences among the old subtypes.

Sharma et al. (2012) found the same overlap problem M flagged, but with DSM-IV rules. Their data showed Asperger and autism checklists were almost twins.

Matson (2007) narrowed the fight to preschoolers. He noted that even twenty years after M, tools for kids under three were still weak.

Rabba et al. (2025) took the debate to adults. They showed the 1987 boundary issues now block grown-ups from getting any label at all.

For you, the review is a warning label on old files. If your intake notes still say "PDD-NOS" or "Asperger," check them against current DSM-5 criteria. Pick tools that match today’s language, and know that mixed pictures—ASD plus ID, or ASD plus mood—need extra screens.