ArticleJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2024
Commentary: Taking stock and moving forward - the need to consider the influence of loss to follow-up in autism screening research.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Children Classified as Medium-Risk by the M-CHAT-R at Age Two Years Have an Increased Likelihood of Subtle but Widespread Developmental Challenges at Preschool Entry: Results From the French National Birth Cohort ELFE.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Screening for developmental delay at 18 months using the Infant Toddler Checklist: A validation study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary highlights the limitations of many existing population-based studies examining the utility of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised/Follow-Up (M-CHAT-R/F) in screening for autism. We expound on three major factors: (a) the limited number of screen-negative children who undergo diagnostic evaluations, (b) the substantial number of children who screen positive and were subsequently lost to follow-up (i.e. without further diagnostic evaluations), and (c) the sizeable number of children who did not complete the full two-stage screening process as intended. Each of these factors can lead to erroneous estimates of the psychometric properties, specifically, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value. Hence, we emphasize the need for future studies to increase the number of children who screen negative and receive a diagnostic evaluation and ensure that these children are selected at random without a higher likelihood for the presence of autism. It is also imperative that concrete steps are taken to minimize the number of screen-positive children who are lost to follow-up both within and after the screening process. Both of these will play a major role in ensuring more robust results from empirical research that can guide the clinical implementation of the M-CHAT-R/F.
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.