ArticleEvidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health2024
Performance of a Tic Screening Tool (MOVeIT) in Comparison to Expert Clinician Assessment in a Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Clinic Sample.
Article in Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health, 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.
- Improving Identification of Tic Disorders in Children.Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities typically have higher rates of tics and stereotypies compared to children with otherwise typical development. Differentiating between these two pediatric movement disorders can be challenging due to overlapping clinical features, but is relevant due to distinct treatment modalities. The current study evaluated sensitivity and specificity of a tic screening measure, the Motor or Vocal Inventory of Tics (MOVeIT) in a pediatric sample enriched for stereotypy and tics. Children (n=199, age 2-15 years old) receiving care in a developmental-behavioral pediatrics clinic underwent a gold-standard diagnostic assessment by a tic expert; these evaluations were compared to the MOVeIT. The MOVeIT demonstrated good sensitivity (89.8%) and relatively lower specificity (57.1%) compared to tic expert for detecting tics in the overall sample. Specificity of the MOVeIT to identify tics improved to 75% when excluding children with co-occurring stereotypy. For children with tics and co-occurring stereotypy, sensitivity remained high (91.9%) but specificity was low (39.1%). The area under the curve (AUC) value to detect tics on the MOVeIT compared to the tic expert gold standard was significantly higher for children without stereotypy (AUC=85.7%) than those with stereotypy (AUC=64.3%, p <0.01). Overall, the ability to detect tics was better in those without co-occurring stereotypy symptoms. Further work is needed to establish the utility of the MOVeIT in populations where there is a high likelihood of co-occurring tics and stereotypy and in general population settings. Accurate distinction between tics and stereotypy will guide choices for intervention and anticipatory guidance for families.
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.