Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38485245›Full record

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.

Ramkumar Aishworiya, Van Kim Ma, Heidi M Feldman

Open access · hybridAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ramkumar AishworiyaKhoo Teck Puat-National University Children's Medical Institute, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5749-1248
Van Kim MaMedical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MIND) Institute, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Heidi M FeldmanDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4435-0913
National University of Singapore · SGStanford University · USUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Autistic DisorderAutism Spectrum DisorderChecklistChild, PreschoolHumansLost to Follow-UpMass ScreeningPsychometricsAutism spectrum disordersScreening

Identifiers

PMID38485245
OpenAlexW4394759038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.