Reading the paper, I'm wondering why they didn't do an actual meta-analysis, to estimate average effect size or likelihood of publication bias. As it is, it's more of a systematic review.

The studies in general they include are case control and prospective cohort studies, predicting neurobehavioral outcomes from paracetamol use retrospectively or prospectively.

The most interesting ones to me are siblings control studies where they compare siblings with and without exposure or case status to control for unmeasured confounds like genetic or family environment variables.

In those studies they reviewed there is still a link but it's much weaker, mostly limited to mothers using paracetamol for a month or more, and on measures not necessarily reflecting autism per se.

That pattern to me is equally suggestive of something other than paracetamol being the causal factor. It could be reflective of a dose response relationship, but you also have to wonder about what else might be going on among women who feel compelled to take paracetamol for over a month at least during pregnancy.

Maybe a paper to call for further better research but not exactly a clear causal link.