Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38484581›Full record

SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024

Screening and diagnostic tools for autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clara Lucato Dos Santos, Indyanara Inacio Barreto, Idevaldo Floriano, Luca Schiliró Tristão, Antonio Silvinato, Wanderley Marques Bernardo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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.

Clara Lucato Dos SantosDepartamento de Medicina Baseada em Evidências, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Santos (UNILUS), Santos, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: claralucato@gmail.com.
Indyanara Inacio BarretoNúcleo de ATS da Unimed de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Idevaldo FlorianoMedicina Baseada em Evidências, Cooperativa Baixa Mogiana, Mogi-Guaçu, SP, Brazil.
Luca Schiliró TristãoDepartamento de Medicina Baseada em Evidências, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Santos (UNILUS), Santos, SP, Brazil.
Antonio SilvinatoMedicina Baseada em Evidências, Associação Médica Brasileira, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Wanderley Marques BernardoFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAutism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral patterns. The slight dynamics of change in the child over time require that the onset of clinical manifestations presented by the child be more valued, with the aim of stabilizing the condition. Faced with a variety of methods for diagnosing ASD, the question arises as to which method should be used. This systematic review aims to recommend the best tools to perform screening and diagnosis. METHODOLOGY: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Lilacs were accessed, and gray and manual searches were performed. The search strategy was created with terms referring to autism and the diagnosis/broad filter. The studies were qualitatively evaluated and quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-diSc-2.0 software, the confidence interval was 95 %.

resultsThe M-CHAT-R/F tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 78 % (95 % CI 0.57‒0.91) and specificity of 0.98 (95 % CI 0.88-1.00). The diagnostic tools demonstrated sensitivity and specificity respectively of: ADOS, sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI 0.79‒0.92) and specificity 75 % (95 % CI 0.73‒0.78); ADI-R demonstrated test sensitivity of 77 % (95 % CI 0.56‒0.90) and specificity 68 % (95 % CI 0.52‒0.81), CARS test sensitivity was 89 % (95 % CI 0.78‒0.95) and specificity 79 % (95 % CI 0.65‒0.88).

conclusionIt is mandatory to apply a screening test, the most recommended being the M-CHAT-R/F. For diagnosis CARS and ADOS are the most recommended tools.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderSensitivity and SpecificityChildHumansMass ScreeningAutismChildrenDiagnosisScreening

Identifiers

PMID38484581
PMCPMC10951453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.