ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
What Happens After Autism Screening-Factors That Predict Evaluation Attendance.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Autism in Women: Invisibilised Profiles and Gender Bias.Revista de neurologia · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStandardized, high-fidelity screening is an effective strategy for early identification of autism. However, studies show that many families do not attend an evaluation following a positive screening result. This study aims to address a critical gap in understanding factors influencing autism evaluation attendance.
methodsChildren (n = 895) from two large-scale, primary care autism screening studies were invited to attend a diagnostic evaluation based on a screener result indicating higher likelihood for autism. We explored whether evaluation attendance differed based on sex, race, ethnicity, maternal education, or age at the time of screening. In addition, we explored whether screener scores differed between children who attended the evaluation versus those whose families declined.
resultsEvaluation attendance differed significantly between the two studies, but did not differ significantly within either study based on child's sex, race, ethnicity, or maternal education. The age at which the child was screened was a significant predictor of evaluation attendance, with higher attendance when the first positive screen was at 18 months (57%) compared to 12 months (38%) or 15 months (30%). In addition, children who completed an evaluation had screening scores indicating more autism characteristics compared to children who did not attend an evaluation (all t > 1.798, all p < .038).
conclusionThese findings emphasize the role of screening factors while de-emphasizing the role of child demographics on families' attendance following a positive screening result.
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.