Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37469104›Full record

ArticleJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2024

The influence of loss to follow-up in autism screening research: Taking stock and moving forward.

R Christopher Sheldrick, Jessica L Hooker, Alice S Carter, Emily Feinberg, Lisa A Croen, Jocelyn Kuhn, Elizabeth Slate, Amy M Wetherby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

R Christopher SheldrickUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Jessica L HookerCollege of Medicine, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6219-5005
Alice S CarterDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9861-1560
Emily FeinbergSchool of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, MA, USA.
Lisa A CroenDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7849-9428
Jocelyn KuhnSchool of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, MA, USA.
Elizabeth SlateDepartment of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Amy M WetherbyCollege of Medicine, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

Funding

Autism Adaptive Community-based Treatment to Improve Outcomes using Navigators (ACTION) NetworkR01HD093055 · NICHD · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI WETHERBY, AMY M · 2017 to 2021
$10.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD093055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHow best to improve the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the subject of significant controversy. Some argue that universal ASD screeners are highly accurate, whereas others argue that evidence for this claim is insufficient. Relatedly, there is no clear consensus as to the optimal role of screening for making referral decisions for evaluation and treatment. Published screening research can meaningfully inform these questions-but only through careful consideration of children who do not complete diagnostic follow-up.

methodsWe developed two simulation models that re-analyze the results of a large-scale validation study of the M-CHAT-R/F by Robins et al. (2014, Pediatrics, 133, 37). Model #1 re-analyzes screener accuracy across six scenarios, each reflecting different assumptions regarding loss to follow-up. Model #2 builds on this by closely examining differential attrition at each point of the multi-step detection process.

resultsEstimates of sensitivity ranged from 40% to 94% across scenarios, demonstrating that estimates of accuracy depend on assumptions regarding the diagnostic status of children who were lost to follow-up. Across a range of plausible assumptions, data also suggest that children with undiagnosed ASD may be more likely to complete follow-up than children without ASD, highlighting the role of clinicians and caregivers in the detection process.

conclusionsUsing simulation modeling as a quantitative method to examine potential bias in screening studies, analyses suggest that ASD screening tools may be less accurate than is often reported. Models also demonstrate the critical importance of every step in a detection process-including steps that determine whether children should complete an additional evaluation. We conclude that parent and clinician decision-making regarding follow-up may contribute more to detection than is widely assumed.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderChildEarly DiagnosisFollow-Up StudiesHumansMass Screeningautism spectrum disordersmethodologyScreeningvalidity

Identifiers

PMID37469104
PMCPMC10801774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.