ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Investigating the Predictive Validity of the Quantitative Checklist for Autism in Toddlers and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2 in Children at Elevated Likelihood for Autism.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined the recurrence rate of autism in siblings at elevated likelihood (EL) and the predictive validity of the Q-CHAT and ADOS-2 at 14 and 24 months (m) for a clinical best estimate (CBE) autism diagnosis at 3 years. 331 EL-siblings (47.9% girls) from the prospective longitudinal EuroSibs study underwent ADOS-2 assessments and caregivers completed the Q-CHAT at 14 m and 24 m. At 3 years CBE was determined using DSM-5 criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated. Autism recurrence rate was 25.7% [95% CI (21.1, 30.6)]. Q-CHAT sensitivity was 31.8% [95% CI (21.4, 43.6)] at 14 m and 30.6% [95% CI (20.7, 41.7)] at 24 m. Specificity was 81.2% [95% CI (75.4, 86.2)] at 14 m and 94.8% [95% CI (91.2, 97.2)] at 24 m. PPV was 35.6% [95% CI (24.2, 48.2)] at 14 m and 66.7% [95% CI (49.8, 81.1)] at 24 m. NPV was 78.5% [95% CI (72.6, 83.7)] and 79.9% [95% CI (74.7, 84.6)] respectively. ADOS-2 demonstrated a of 64.3% [95% CI (45.9, 80.2)] and 69.3% [95% CI (58.4, 79.0)] and a specificity of 71.1% [95% CI (60.3, 80.4)] and 68.7% [95% CI (62.5, 74.5)] at 14 m and 24 m respectively. PPV was 45% [95% CI (30.3, 60.4)] at 14 m and 41.9% [95% CI (33.5, 50.7)] at 24 m. NPV was 84.4% [95% CI (74.2, 91.8)] at 14 m and 87.3% [95% CI (81.9, 91.6)] at 24 m. Q-CHAT and ADOS-2 at 14 m and 24 m can aid in early differentiation between EL-siblings who need further assessment and those who do not, but neither has sufficient sensitivity and PPV for standalone CBE diagnosis prediction.
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.