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.
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.
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.
- Exploring the Potential of Parent Report for Autism/Developmental Screening at the 18-Month Visit.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Could a National Screening Program Reduce the Age of Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder?Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Brief Report: Single and Repeat Screening with the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers-Revised in Young Children at Higher Likelihood for Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the Parent-Reported Indicator of Developmental Evaluation for Chinese Children (PRIDE) tool.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025Article
- Screening for developmental delay at 18 months using the Infant Toddler Checklist: A validation study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.