ArticleJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2024
Applying autism screening research to real-world scenarios: a commentary on Sheldrick et al. (2023).
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) continues to be a challenge despite universal screening efforts. One explanation is that screening tools have lower sensitivity and specificity than initial studies report when accounting for incomplete follow-up for all children screened. Sheldrick and colleagues used statistical modeling to demonstrate the impact on sensitivity and specificity when assumptions about the diagnostic outcome of children who do not pursue diagnostic evaluation are altered. Crucially, the work of Sheldrick et al. serves as a reminder that autism screening in primary care is just one component of the clinical assessment and should not be conflated with a diagnostic evaluation. Thus, lack of follow-up after a positive screen is a feature, not only a bug when using a screen in a clinical setting. Engaging families in shared decision-making around screening may help encourage follow-up, and thus, screening tool psychometric performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38009449What 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.