ArticlePloS one2025
Investigating the role of three screening measures to support clinical decision-making in adult autism assessments.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Referrals for autism diagnostic assessments in adults are increasing, with demand creating long waiting lists. Rigorously evaluated screening tools could serve to identify who is most likely to receive an autism diagnosis and contribute to clinical decision-making. We retrospectively examined individuals attending a specialist diagnostic assessment service in the UK over four years (2011-2014). Complete data on three screening measures were available for N = 422 referrals. These were the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ), the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the Childhood Autism Spectrum Test-Relatives' Questionnaire (CAST-RQ). 89% (n = 376) received an autism diagnosis. Positive screens on all three measures had a 98.3% likelihood of receiving an autism diagnosis, confirming findings from an independent clinic sample. We also examined the AQ subscale scores to establish their association with diagnostic outcome. While all people accepted onto the diagnostic assessment pathway should be offered an assessment, people who meet all three cut-offs could be offered a briefer assessment given the high likelihood that an autism diagnosis will be confirmed. Such triaging may lead to more efficient use of clinic time allowing referred individuals to be seen more quickly.
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.