University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 7th Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35233, USA.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2021 Nov;51(11):4101-4114. doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04839-z. Epub 2021 Jan 21.
The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R) have high accuracy as diagnostic instruments in research settings, while evidence of accuracy in clinical settings is less robust. This meta-analysis focused on efficacy of these measures in research versus clinical settings. Articles (n = 22) were analyzed using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model. ADOS-2 performance was stronger than the ADI-R. ADOS-2 sensitivity and specificity ranged from .89-.92 and .81-.85, respectively. ADOS-2 accuracy in research compared with clinical settings was mixed. ADI-R sensitivity and specificity were .75 and .82, respectively, with higher specificity in research samples (Research = .85, Clinical = .72). A small number of clinical studies were identified, indicating ongoing need for investigation outside research settings.
自闭症诊断观察量表第二版(ADOS-2)和自闭症诊断访谈修订版(ADI-R)作为诊断工具,在研究环境中具有较高的准确性,而在临床环境中的准确性证据则不够充分。本荟萃分析重点关注这些工具在研究与临床环境中的疗效。使用层次汇总受试者工作特征(HSROC)模型对 22 篇文章进行了分析。ADOS-2 的性能优于 ADI-R。ADOS-2 的敏感性和特异性范围分别为.89-.92 和.81-.85。ADOS-2 在研究与临床环境中的准确性参差不齐。ADI-R 的敏感性和特异性分别为.75 和.82,且在研究样本中特异性更高(研究=.85,临床=.72)。仅确定了少数临床研究,表明在研究环境之外,仍需要进行进一步调查。