Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36804771›Full record

SynthesisJAMA pediatrics2023

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (Original and Revised): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Andrea Trubanova Wieckowski, Lashae N Williams, Juliette Rando, Kristen Lyall, Diana L Robins

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Predicting 18-month M-CHAT-R/F With PediaTracJournal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Psychological Impact of Autism Screening on Caregivers.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Translational pediatrics · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea Trubanova WieckowskiA.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Lashae N WilliamsA.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Juliette RandoA.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Kristen LyallA.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Diana L RobinsA.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Drexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and the M-CHAT, Revised With Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F)-henceforth referred to as M-CHAT(-R/F)-are the most commonly used toddler screeners for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Their use often differs from that in the original validation studies, resulting in a range of estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Also, given the variability in reports of the clinical utility of the M-CHAT(-R/F), researchers and practitioners lack guidance to inform autism screening protocols. Objective: To synthesize variability in sensitivity and specificity of M-CHAT(-R/F) across multiple factors, including procedures for identifying missed cases, likelihood level, screening age, and single compared with repeated screenings. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published between January 1, 2001, and August 31, 2022. Study Selection: Articles were included if the studies used the M-CHAT(-R/F) (ie, original or revised version) to identify new ASD cases, were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals, included at least 10 ASD cases, reported procedures for false-negative case identification, screened children by 48 months, and included information (or had information provided by authors when contacted) needed to conduct the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool evaluated bias in sample selection. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 authors independently. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the M-CHAT(-R/F) was assessed with the hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios, and HSROC curves of M-CHAT(-R/F). Results: The review included 50 studies with 51 samples. The pooled sensitivity of M-CHAT(-R/F) was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and the pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97). Heterogeneity analyses revealed greater diagnostic accuracy for low- vs high-likelihood samples, a concurrent vs prospective case confirmation strategy, a large vs small sample size, use of M-CHAT(-R/F) Follow-up, and non-English vs English only. Conclusions and Relevance: Overall, results of this study suggest the utility of the M-CHAT(-R/F) as an ASD screener. The wide variability in psychometric properties of M-CHAT(-R/F) highlights differences in screener use that should be considered in research and practice.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderChecklistChild, PreschoolHumansROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID36804771
PMCPMC9941975
OpenAlexW4321369859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.