Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35211554›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022

Comparison of diagnostic validity of two autism rating scales for suspected autism in a large Chinese sample.

Jia-Hui Chu, Fang Bian, Rui-Ying Yan, Yan-Lin Li, Yong-Hua Cui, Ying Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Advances in research on gender differences in autism spectrum disorders].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jia-Hui ChuDepartment of Psychiatry, Beijing Children's Hospital, Beijing 100045, China.
Fang BianDepartment of Psychiatry, Beijing Children's Hospital, Beijing 100045, China.
Rui-Ying YanDepartment of Psychiatry, Beijing Children's Hospital, Beijing 100045, China.
Yan-Lin LiDepartment of Psychiatry, Beijing Children's Hospital, Beijing 100045, China.
Yong-Hua CuiDepartment of Psychiatry, Beijing Children's Hospital, Beijing 100045, China.
Ying LiDepartment of Psychiatry, Beijing Children's Hospital, Beijing 100045, China. liying@bch.com.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutism is the most common clinical developmental disorder in children. The childhood autism rating scale (CARS) and autistic autism behavior checklist (ABC) are the most commonly used assessment scales for diagnosing autism. However, the diagnostic validations and the corresponding cutoffs for CARS and ABC in individuals with suspected autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remain unclear. Furthermore, for suspected ASD in China, it remains unclear whether CARS is a better diagnostic tool than ABC. Also unclear is whether the current cutoff points for ABC and CARS are suitable for the accurate diagnosis of ASD.

aimTo investigate the diagnostic validity of CARS and ABC based on a large Chinese sample.

methodsA total of 591 outpatient children from the ASD Unit at Beijing Children's Hospital between June and November 2019 were identified. First, the Clancy autism behavior scale (CABS) was used to screen out suspected autism from these children. Then, each suspected ASD was evaluated by CARS and ABC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare diagnostic validations. We also calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for both CARS and ABC.

resultsWe found that the Cronbach alpha coefficients of CARS and ABC were 0.772 and 0.426, respectively. Therefore, the reliability of the CARS was higher than that of the ABC. In addition, we found that the correlation between CARS and CABS was 0.732. Next, we performed ROC curve analysis for CARS and ABC, which yielded AUC values of 0.846 and 0.768, respectively. The cutoff value, which is associated with the maximum Youden index, is usually applied as a decision threshold. We found that the cutoff values of CARS and ABC were 34 and 67, respectively.

conclusionThis result indicated that CARS is superior to ABC in the Chinese population with suspected ASD.

Indexed as

Autism behavior checklistChildhood autism rating scaleChildrenCutoff valueReceiver operating characteristic curveSuspected autism spectrum disorder

Identifiers

PMID35211554
PMCPMC8855175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.