ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2018
Comparison of DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 Criteria in Diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorders in Singapore.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How has DSM-5 Affected Autism Diagnosis? A 5-Year Follow-Up Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2020Pooled it
- Burden and inequality of autism spectrum disorders in global, East asian, and Southeast Asian regions, 1990-2021: result from the global burden of disease study 2021.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods.Comprehensive psychiatry · 2025Article
- Commercial Wearables for the Management of People with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review.Biosensors · 2024Review
- The LEADING Guideline: Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Analysis of Asperger Syndrome Using Genetic-Evolutionary Random Support Vector Machine Cluster.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study examines the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) when applied concurrently against the best estimate clinical diagnoses for 110 children (5.1-19.6 years old) referred for diagnostic assessments of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in a Singaporean outpatient speciality clinic. DSM-IV-TR performed slightly better, yielding sensitivity of 0.946 and specificity of 0.889, compared to DSM-5 (sensitivity = 0.837; specificity = 0.833). When considering the ASD sub-categories, sensitivity ranged from 0.667 to 0.933, and specificity ranged from 0.900 to 0.975. More participants with a PDD-NOS best estimate clinical diagnosis (40%) were misclassified on DSM-5. Merits and weaknesses to both classification systems, and implications for access to services and policy changes are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29705921What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.