SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Module-specific diagnostic accuracy of ADOS-2 in real-world clinical referral populations: an updated systematic review and HSROC meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2), is widely used in the diagnostic evaluation of autism spectrum disorder (ASD); however, its diagnostic performance in real-world clinical referral populations remains heterogeneous, particularly across modules and clinical contexts. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the module-specific diagnostic accuracy of ADOS-2 using hierarchical meta-analytic modeling and examined sources of heterogeneity in updated evidence clinical studies. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from January 2021 to February 2026, with additional screening of reference lists. Studies were included if they evaluated ADOS-2 diagnostic accuracy in real-world clinical referral populations, used DSM- or ICD-based clinical best-estimate diagnosis as the reference standard, and reported extractable 2×2 data. Diagnostic accuracy was pooled using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model with a bivariate random-effects approach. Module-specific analyses (Toddler Module, Modules 1-2, Module 3, Module 4) and meta-regression were performed to examine heterogeneity. Results: Ten studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and six provided extractable 2×2 data for quantitative pooling. Overall pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92) and pooled specificity was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80), with an HSROC AUC of 0.86. The Toddler Module showed the highest diagnostic performance (sensitivity 0.92; specificity 0.88; AUC 0.94), whereas specificity decreased in Modules 3 and 4. Meta-regression identified module level, psychiatric referral setting, and adult samples as significant contributors to reduced specificity. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusions: ADOS-2 demonstrates high overall sensitivity but variable specificity across modules in real-world clinical referral populations. Reduced specificity was more commonly observed in higher ADOS-2 modules, which are typically administered to verbally fluent adolescents and adults with greater psychiatric complexity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.