ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2025
Autism screening and diagnostic outcomes among toddlers born preterm.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with abnormal screening for autism spectrum disorder among Extremely Preterm Children.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Early developmental trajectory phenotypes for risk stratification of autism spectrum disorder in very preterm infants: a machine learning approach.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Validity of Autism Diagnostic Tools in Medically Complex Young Children: The Toddler Autism Symptom Inventory, TAP, and Childhood Autism Rating Scale.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Autism screening is critical for the most vulnerable children.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo examine the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised, with Follow-Up (M-CHAT-R/F), with follow-up screening and diagnostic outcomes for children born preterm. A secondary aim was to examine diagnostic evaluation attendance after screening to inform clinical practice.
methodUsing a cross-sectional design, 9725 toddlers (4951 males; 4774 females) whose gestational age was reported were screened at 15-month, 18-month, or 24-month well-child visits; screen-positive children were invited for an autism evaluation. Screening measure performance and diagnostic outcomes were evaluated according to preterm classification (Screening: n
resultsScreen-positive rates were highest for children born extremely preterm (51.35%) and lowest for children born at term (6.95%). Evaluation attendance for screen-positive cases did not differ according to preterm classification. Rates of autism diagnoses differed depending on preterm birth status: for children born extremely preterm, it was 16.05%; for children born very preterm, it was 2.00%; for children born moderately preterm, it was 2.89%; and for children born at term, it was 1.49%. M-CHAT-R/F sensitivity decreased with increasing gestational age, whereas specificity improved with increasing gestational age. Positive predictive value was highest for children born extremely preterm and children born at term. Negative predictive value was consistently strong across all groups. The likelihood ratio for positive screening increased with gestational age.
interpretationThe sensitivity and specificity of the M-CHAT-R/F are acceptable in toddlers born preterm. Autism screening-positive rates and prevalence increased with earlier preterm birth. Those born extremely preterm showed the greatest likelihood of an autism diagnosis; screening should not be delayed based on adjusted age.
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.