ArticleZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics2021
[Value of autism screening checklists in the early identification of autism spectrum disorder].
Article in Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autism Screening Using Parent's Observations of Social Interactions (POSI) in High-Risk Infants.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Association of metallic elements with telomere length in children with autism spectrum disorder.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Analysis of salivary steroid hormones in boys with autism spectrum disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- The Optimal Cut-Off Point for Thai Diagnostic Autism Scale and Probability Prediction of Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis in Suspected Children.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the value of autism screening checklists in the early identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
methodsA total of 2 571 children who attended the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University and completed autism screening and diagnostic test were enrolled as subjects, among whom 2 074 were diagnosed with ASD, 261 were diagnosed with global developmental delay (GDD), 206 were diagnosed with developmental language disorder (DLD), and 30 had normal development. The sensitivity, specificity, and optimal threshold value of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and the Autism Behavior Checklist (ABC) for the early identification of ASD were evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
resultsThe M-CHAT had a high sensitivity of 88.3% but a low specificity of 36.0% for the identification of ASD. Its sensitivity decreased with age, and was maintained above 80% for children aged 16 to < 48 months. The ABC had a high specificity of 87.3% but a low sensitivity of 27.2%, with an optimal cut-off value of 47.5 based on the ROC curve analysis. The multivariate linear regression model based on a combination of the M-CHAT and ABC for screening of ASD showed a specificity of 85.8% and a sensitivity of 56.6%.
conclusionsThe M-CHAT has a high sensitivity and a low specificity in the identification of ASD, with a better effect in children aged 16 to < 48 months. The ABC has a high specificity and a low sensitivity. The multiple linear regression model method based on the combined M-CHAT and ABC to screen ASD appears to be effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33840405PMC8050549W3152648683What 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.