The time has come for living systematic reviews in autism research.

Elsabbagh et al. (2022) wrote a position paper. They did not run a new experiment.

They argue that autism research should switch to living systematic reviews. These are reviews that get updated every few months instead of every few years.

The authors found that old-style reviews go stale fast. New studies come out weekly.

A living review stays fresh by adding new studies as they appear.

Patterson et al. (2012) looked at parent-training studies. Their review is now twelve years old. A living update would catch any new trials since then.

Davidovitch et al. (2018) showed we still lack autism-specific quality-of-life tools. Their evidence base keeps growing. A living review would track whether better tools appear.

Bottema-Beutel et al. (2023) found most transition-age studies are weak. Their snapshot will age quickly. A living format would flag stronger studies as soon as they publish.

Smith et al. (2007) set up a four-step pipeline for new interventions. Elsabbagh et al. (2022) extend that idea to the back end: once studies finish, keep the review of them alive.

You rely on reviews to pick evidence-based practices. A review that is two years old can miss key studies. Ask your library or a grad student to set up monthly PubMed alerts for your favorite autism topics. When new trials hit, slot them into your own mini living review. You will always know the strongest current evidence.