ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Confidence of Pediatric Primary Care Clinicians in Autism Screener Score and Their Own Diagnostic Impressions.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Autism-specific screening and developmental surveillance in primary care aid identification of autism. In this study, we assessed primary care clinicians' (PCCs') reported confidence in screening scores from the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised (M-CHAT-R) and in their own diagnostic impressions. Four PCCs provided data for 50 children aged 16-36 months for whom they had any developmental concern. PCCs' diagnostic impressions were "Definitely Autism" for 15 children (30%), "Unsure-Needs Further Evaluation" for 25 children (50%) and "Definitely Not Autism" for 10 children (20%). They reported High Confidence on the screener score in 33 cases (66%). Of the 17 cases for whom PCCs reported having Low Confidence on the M-CHAT-R, 14 children (82.3%) had a Low Likelihood score, with no significant association between M-CHAT-R likelihood and PCC's confidence in the screening score. PCCs' diagnostic impressions were concordant with the M-CHAT-R autism likelihood in 42% of cases, with a significantly higher mean in confidence rating when compared to the non-concordant cases. Language development and social engagement were the most frequently endorsed concerns by PCCs, with significant associations between these concerns and M-CHAT-R likelihood. Our results suggest that, when developmental concerns exist, PCCs may place greater confidence in the M-CHAT-R when scores indicate a higher likelihood of autism, and that confidence in their own diagnostic impressions may be associated with concordance with the screener score.
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.