ReviewPediatric investigation2026
Failure points in the early autism identification pathway for children aged 0-5 years: Why screening is not diagnosis.
Review in Pediatric investigation, 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
Early autism identification in children aged 0-5 years is often discussed in terms of screening accuracy, yet consequential delay frequently occurs across the pathway from first concern to referral, diagnostic assessment, and support. This critical narrative review examines early autism identification as a pathway problem rather than as a single testing event. It synthesizes evidence on developmental surveillance, autism-specific screening, parental and clinician concern, referral conversion, diagnostic waiting, service capacity, inequity, family burden, and pre-diagnostic support. Screening tools can identify an elevated likelihood of autism and may accelerate diagnosis for some screen-positive children, but they cannot confirm diagnosis or safely exclude autism when concern persists, and they do not compensate for failures in follow-up, referral, assessment capacity, or support initiation. Recent evidence supports a cautious interpretation of universal autism screening because diagnostic stability, screening accuracy, and intervention benefit in screen-detected children remain uncertain. Comparative evidence on the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up suggests context-dependent performance, including variable sensitivity, low or inconsistent positive predictive value, and age-dependent accuracy. Multicultural surveillance and implementation studies indicate that adding tools without aligning workflow, language support, follow-up systems, and service capacity may not improve pathway performance. The review argues that early autism identification should be evaluated through linked quality measures: response to concern, repeated surveillance following negative or ambiguous screening, referral completion, time to diagnostic assessment, support initiation before diagnostic closure, and equity of access. The clinical priority is not a perfect screening instrument in isolation, but faster, more coherent, and more equitable local pathways that translate concern into timely action.
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.