FAB RESEARCH COMMENT:
With a sample size of only 14 children in total, it would be quite extraordinary for anyone to expect 'statistically significant' differences between those who were allocated to a gluten-free diet for 12 weeks, and those who were not (unless of course the intervention were to be as extreme as 'the use of a parachute or not' when jumping from a plane...)
To say that
'the findings must be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size' is thus a rather major understatement. With so few children included, this study can at best be regarded as a pilot 'feasibility' study only.
Without suitably qualified help in planning the diet, the removal of all gluten grains can increase the risk of nutrient deficiencies. The authors' comment that '
with nutritional counseling, the diet was safe and well-tolerated' is thus potentially informative and encouraging for planning future studies.
However, those do need to be of sufficient size to be able to detect any effects that might follow from a gluten-free diet. (Ideally, such trials should also be large and well-designed enough to examine subgroups defined by other relevant features - because 'autism' is a purely descriptive diagnosis that conceals substantial variability, and all the existing evidence points to there being no single 'cause' - but rather, a multiplicity of risk factors).
See also: