Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Screening and diagnostic tools for autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Santos, Clara Lucato dos; Barreto, Indyanara Inacio; Floriano, Idevaldo; Tristão, Luca Schiliró; Silvinato, Antonio; Bernardo, Wanderley Marques.
Afiliação
  • Santos, Clara Lucato dos; Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Santos. Departamento de Medicina Baseada em Evidências. Santos. BR
  • Barreto, Indyanara Inacio; Núcleo de ATS da Unimed de Campinas. Campinas. BR
  • Floriano, Idevaldo; Cooperativa Baixa Mogiana. Medicina Baseada em Evidências. Mogi-Guaçu. BR
  • Tristão, Luca Schiliró; Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Santos. Departamento de Medicina Baseada em Evidências. Santos. BR
  • Silvinato, Antonio; Associação Médica Brasileira. Medicina Baseada em Evidências. São Paulo. BR
  • Bernardo, Wanderley Marques; Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina. São Paulo. BR
Clinics ; 79: 100323, 2024. graf
Article em En | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1557588
Biblioteca responsável: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral patterns. The slight dynamics of change in the child over time require that the onset of clinical manifestations presented by the child be more valued, with the aim of stabilizing the condition. Faced with a variety of methods for diagnosing ASD, the question arises as to which method should be used. This systematic review aims to recommend the best tools to perform screening and diagnosis. Methodology This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Lilacs were accessed, and gray and manual searches were performed. The search strategy was created with terms referring to autism and the diagnosis/broad filter. The studies were qualitatively evaluated and quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-diSc-2.0 software, the confidence interval was 95 %. Results The M-CHAT-R/F tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 78 % (95 % CI 0.57‒0.91) and specificity of 0.98 (95 % CI 0.88-1.00). The diagnostic tools demonstrated sensitivity and specificity respectively of ADOS, sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI 0.79‒0.92) and specificity 75 % (95 % CI 0.73‒0.78); ADI-R demonstrated test sensitivity of 77 % (95 % CI 0.56‒0.90) and specificity 68 % (95 % CI 0.52‒0.81), CARS test sensitivity was 89 % (95 % CI 0.78‒0.95) and specificity 79 % (95 % CI 0.65‒0.88). Conclusion It is mandatory to apply a screening test, the most recommended being the M-CHAT-R/F. For diagnosis CARS and ADOS are the most recommended tools.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Índice: LILACS Idioma: En Revista: Clinics Assunto da revista: MEDICINA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Índice: LILACS Idioma: En Revista: Clinics Assunto da revista: MEDICINA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article