Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33825947›Full record

ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2022

Response (minimum clinically relevant change) in ASD symptoms after an intervention according to CARS-2: consensus from an expert elicitation procedure.

Lucie Jurek, Matias Baltazar, Sheffali Gulati, Neda Novakovic, María Núñez, Jeremy Oakley, Anthony O'Hagan

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lucie JurekChild and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, Center for Assessment and Diagnostic of Autism, Le Vinatier Hospital, Bron, France. lucie.jurek@ch-le-vinatier.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-568X
Matias BaltazarChild and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, Center for Assessment and Diagnostic of Autism, Le Vinatier Hospital, Bron, France.
Sheffali GulatiCentre of Excellence and Advanced Research on Childhood Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Child Neurology Division, Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Neda NovakovicDay Care Centre for Children and Adolescents with Developmental Disabilities, Belgade, Serbia.
María NúñezFaculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Campus de Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain.
Jeremy OakleySchool of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sheffield, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield, UK.
Anthony O'HaganSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sheffield, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield, UK.
Centre Hospitalier Le Vinatier · FRUniversity of Sheffield · GBAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lack of consensual measures to monitor core change in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or response to interventions leads to difficulty to prove intervention efficacy on ASD core symptoms. There are no universally accepted outcome measures developed for measuring changes in core symptoms. However, the CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) is one of the outcomes recommended in the EMA Guideline on the clinical development of medicinal products for the treatment of ASD. Unfortunately, there is currently no consensus on the response definition for CARS among individuals with ASD. The aim of this elicitation process was to determine an appropriate definition of a response on the CARS2 scale for interventions in patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An elicitation process was conducted following the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF). Five experts in the field of ASD and two experts in expert knowledge elicitation participated in an 1-day elicitation workshop. Experts in ASD were previously trained in the SHELF elicitation process and received a dossier of scientific evidence concerning the topic. The response definition was set as the mean clinically relevant improvement averaged over all patients, levels of functioning, age groups and clinicians. Based on the scientific evidence and expert judgment, a normal probability distribution was agreed to represent the state of knowledge of this response with expected value 4.03 and standard deviation 0.664. Considering the remaining uncertainty of the estimation and the available literature, a CARS-2 improvement of 4.5 points has been defined as a threshold to conclude to a response after an intervention. A CARS-2 improvement of 4.5 points could be used to evaluate interventions' meaningfulness in indivudals. This initial finding represents an important new benchmark and may aid decision makers in evaluating the efficacy of interventions in ASD.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderChildHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareAutism Spectrum DisorderCARSChangeExpert knowledge elicitationMeasureResponseSHELF

Identifiers

PMID33825947
PMCPMC8024930
OpenAlexW3148840923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.