ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
Performance of Autism Screening and Diagnostic Instruments Among Children with ADHD: A Systematic Review.
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 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.
- Contrastive and Transfer Learning for Aligned Multimodal Neuroimaging Classification of Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is challenging, especially in clinical populations like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), which is known to have significant overlap in symptoms and high rates of comorbidity. The current systematic review examined the utility of diagnostic and screening tools in accurately ruling out ASD among youth with ADHD. The literature was reviewed for studies that examined the psychometric properties of ASD measures among school-aged children with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD. Data from the included ASD measures were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias and applicability were evaluated with the QUADAS-2, a quality assessment tool for reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. In total, 20 studies evaluating eight screening and diagnostic instruments were located. 67% of the studies reported adequate specificity (0.8 or higher) in ruling out ASD, although there was very limited research (n = 5) on the performance of diagnostic measures. The Social Communication Questionnaire was the most studied measure (n = 8) and showed consistently good psychometric properties across studies. Quality ratings indicated high risk of bias in the sample composition (e.g., 60% of studies underrepresented girls and 75% underrepresented those with intellectual disability) and method of diagnosis (e.g., 60% of studies failed to use best estimate clinical diagnosis). This review highlights the need for more research investigating the performance of ASD measures, especially among girls with ADHD and individuals with co-occurring intellectual disability. Further, research should also emphasize methodologically rigorous practices, such as best estimate clinical diagnosis and use of blinding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40580404What 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.