ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Investigating the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule 'Gold Standard' Origin Myth.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) is regularly cited as the standalone 'gold standard' or an essential inclusion for diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. This research considers whether the evidence is consistent with the strength of such beliefs.
methodsA random sample of 100 published articles referring to the ADOS as having 'gold standard' status was reviewed. Analysis of cited evidence for this proposition was performed over three iterations, exploring the source of each 'gold standard' statement.
resultsThe first iteration found 62% of 'gold standard' statements were either unreferenced or only cited test materials. From the remaining 38%, a total of 47 discrete sources were referenced. In the second iteration, about 60% of papers did not include any supporting reference, with another five citing references inconsistent with 'gold standard' statements. Only one paper from the third iteration cited source material that had not been reviewed in the first and second iterations. Two of the three associated references cited in that one paper contained no mention of the ADOS as a 'gold standard'.
conclusionThe majority of papers reviewed failed to cite support for a 'gold standard' statement. Failure to identify these issues at peer-review suggests a pervasive, but erroneous, assumption that there is a broad consensus about the status of the ADOS. In reviewing this sample, 'gold standard' consensus appears based more on hearsay and marketing than clinical support, suggesting a need for greater vigilance during the review process by requiring authors to establish evidence for significant assertions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42461527What 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.