ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
A Direct Comparison of Three Screening Methods for Autism Spectrum Disorder in a High-Likelihood Sibling Population.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative screening accuracy of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up (M-Chat-R/F) for early autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.Family medicine and community health · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Targeted screening of children at increased likelihood of autism is recommended. However, autism screening tools are usually validated for use mainly in low-likelihood populations. This study compared the accuracy of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F), the ASDetect app, and the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance, Revised (SACS-R). Siblings of autistic children underwent autism screening at 12, 18 and 30 months old. At each visit, caregivers completed the M-CHAT-R/F and ASDetect while trained nurses tested the siblings using the SACS-R. At 36 to 48 months, the siblings underwent an Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Second Edition (ADOS-2) assessment. 189 siblings were screened, 141 completed the study, and 32 were confirmed to have autism. Although not validated for use at 12 months, the M-CHAT-R/F had the best sensitivity among the three tools for this age group, suggesting that early signs are already apparent to caregivers. The M-CHAT-R/F had overall better sensitivity (0.72-0.83) across all age groups, but with overall lower specificity (0.55-0.77). The SACS-R and ASDetect had better positive predictive values at 18 and 30 months (0.60-0.68), while the M-CHAT-R/F was 0.43-0.48. Negative predictive values were generally high across all three tools across all age groups (0.78-0.93). Targeted screening of children at high likelihood of autism yielded a detection rate of 22.7% and should therefore be implemented routinely to facilitate early detection and intervention. The performance of autism screening tools should be examined in higher-likelihood populations for targeted screening of these children.
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.