ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
Examining Sociodemographic Factors Related to Autism Screening Rates of Children in Early Intervention.
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.
- Validation of the Updated (March 2025) Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised, with Follow-Up (M-CHAT-R/F) in Greek.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRoutine developmental screening is essential for early identification of autism. Reliable autism screening is even more valuable for individuals from minoritized groups who are often under-detected and receive later diagnoses. Despite this importance, disparities in access to screening and accurate identification persist. Given these disparities, we were interested in examining group differences in autism screening rates at 18 and 24 months of age among children referred to Georgia's Part C Babies Can't Wait (BCW) program between 2018 and 2022.
methodAmong a sample of 52,282 infants and toddlers enrolled in BCW, as hypothesized males and children with private insurance had higher screening likelihoods compared to females and children with public insurance.
resultsUnexpectedly, Black and Hispanic children were more likely to be screened than their counterparts. To examine this further, an examination of screening timing revealed that White and male children were more likely to be screened before their referral to BCW compared to peers.
conclusionThis reveals continued inequities in screening timing but suggests that BCW providers serve an important role in identifying children who may have been missed in other settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41351788What 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.