ArticleJAACAP open2026
Autism Diagnostic Assessments for Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Modified Delphi Study of Clinician Experts in the Fields of Autism and Gender Diversity.
Article in JAACAP open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: There is limited evidence-based guidance about how autism diagnostic assessments should be conducted for gender-diverse people. This study aimed to integrate expert knowledge on key clinical considerations for these assessments. Method: A modified Delphi study was conducted. World experts in the field (N = 21) were invited to complete 2 rounds of surveys. Survey one collected open-text responses about key clinical considerations when conducting diagnostic assessments, structured around the Results: Round one resulted in 65 individual statements, of which 37 met our definition for reporting. These statements, summarizing expert opinions, were categorized as being general considerations for assessments, linked to the Conclusion: The summary of expert opinions provides preliminary considerations for clinicians working in this field and for researchers to use as hypotheses for empirical investigations.
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.