We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Clinician Diagnostic Certainty and the Role of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule in Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis in Young Children.
- Authors
Barbaresi, William; Cacia, Jaclyn; Friedman, Sandra; Fussell, Jill; Hansen, Robin; Hofer, Johannes; Roizen, Nancy; Stein, Ruth E. K.; Vanderbilt, Douglas; Sideridis, Georgios
- Abstract
This study evaluates consistency between clinical diagnosis and diagnosis incorporating the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule and examines clinician and child factors that predict consistency between index and reference standard diagnoses. Key Points: Question: What is the role of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) for diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in young children? Findings: In this diagnostic study of 349 children ages 18 months to 5 years, 11 months, there was 90.0% agreement between index diagnoses (ie, clinical diagnosis) and reference standard diagnoses (ie, diagnosis including information from ADOS). Clinician diagnostic certainty was the best predictor of consistency between index diagnoses and reference standard diagnoses. Meaning: The ADOS is not required for ASD diagnosis in young children; specialist clinicians can identify children for whom the ADOS may contribute to accurate diagnosis. Importance: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) affects 1 in 44 children. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) is a semi-structured observation developed for use in research but is considered a component of gold standard clinical diagnosis. The ADOS adds time and cost to diagnostic assessments. Objective: To evaluate consistency between clinical diagnosis (index ASD diagnosis) and diagnosis incorporating the ADOS (reference standard ASD diagnosis) and to examine clinician and child factors that predict consistency between index diagnoses and reference standard diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective diagnostic study was conducted between May 2019 and February 2020. Developmental-behavioral pediatricians (DBPs) made a diagnosis based on clinical assessment (index ASD diagnosis). The ADOS was then administered, after which the DBP made a second diagnosis (reference standard ASD diagnosis). DBPs self-reported diagnostic certainty at the time of the index diagnoses and reference standard diagnoses. The study took place at 8 sites (7 US and 1 European) that provided subspecialty assessments for children with concerns for ASD. Participants included children aged 18 months to 5 years, 11 months, without a prior ASD diagnosis, consecutively referred for possible ASD. Among 648 eligible children, 23 refused, 376 enrolled, and 349 completed the study. All 40 eligible DBPs participated. Exposures: ADOS administered to all child participants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Index diagnoses and reference standard diagnoses of ASD (yes/no). Results: Among the 349 children (279 [79.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.9 [13.4] months), index diagnoses and reference standard diagnoses were consistent for 314 (90%) (ASD = 250; not ASD = 64) and changed for 35. Clinician diagnostic certainty was the most sensitive and specific predictor of diagnostic consistency (area under curve = 0.860; P <.001). In a multilevel logistic regression, no child or clinician factors improved prediction of diagnostic consistency based solely on clinician diagnostic certainty at time of index diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective diagnostic study, clinical diagnoses of ASD by DBPs with vs without the ADOS were consistent in 90.0% of cases. Clinician diagnostic certainty predicted consistency of index diagnoses and reference standard diagnoses. This study suggests that the ADOS is generally not required for diagnosis of ASD in young children by DBPs and that DBPs can identify children for whom the ADOS may be needed.
- Subjects
UNITED States; EUROPE; DIAGNOSIS of autism; REFERENCE values; PSYCHOLOGY of children with disabilities; PREDICTIVE tests; MULTIPLE regression analysis; POPULATION geography; COMPARATIVE studies; CLINICAL competence; RADIATION doses; PSYCHOSOCIAL factors; PEDIATRICIANS; DESCRIPTIVE statistics; RESEARCH funding; SENSITIVITY &; specificity (Statistics); LONGITUDINAL method; EVALUATION; CHILDREN
- Publication
JAMA Pediatrics, 2022, Vol 176, Issue 12, p1233
- ISSN
2168-6203
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3605