BackgroundThere is growing research evidence that subclinical autistic traits are elevated in relatives of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), continuously distributed in the general population and likely to share common etiology with ASD. A number of measures have been developed to assess autistic traits quantitatively in unselected samples. So far, the Quantitative-Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) is one of very few measures developed for use with toddlers as young as 18 months, but little is known about its measurement properties and factor structure.MethodsThe present study examined internal consistency, factor structure, test-retest stability, and convergent validity of the Q-CHAT in a sample of toddlers in Singapore whose caregivers completed the Q-CHAT at 18 (n = 368) and 24 months (n = 396).ResultsThree factors were derived accounting for 38.1 % of the variance: social/communication traits, non-social/behavioral traits, and a speech/language factor. Internal consistency was suboptimal for the total and speech/language scores, but acceptable for the social/communication and non-social/behavioral factor scores. Scores were generally stable between 18 and 24 months. Convergent validity was found with the Pervasive Developmental Disorders subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) completed by caregivers when their children were 24 months. Q-CHAT total scores in this sample were higher than those reported in other unselected samples from the UK.ConclusionsThe Q-CHAT was found to have a three-factor structure, acceptable internal consistency for its two main factor scores (social/communication and non-social/behavioral), normally distributed scores in an unselected sample, and similar structure and measurement properties as those reported in other published studies. Findings are discussed in relation to existing literature and future directions for the validation of the Q-CHAT.

The relationship between hypertension and hemifacial spasm (HFS) has been debated. Microvascular decompression surgery is effective in some HFS patients with uncontrolled hypertension. To address current gaps in knowledge, we conducted a meta-analysis of case-control studies that have examined the prevalence of hypertension in HFS patients compared to non-HFS controls. We also evaluated the implications and limitations of the pooled studies. We identified 62 studies from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scholar.google.com and six studies that fit our inclusion criteria were included. A random-effects model was used to derive the pooled estimate of the Odds Ratio. The data was plotted on a Forest plot. A pooled analysis involving 51585 subjects, 549 cases, 720 neurological controls and 50316 controls from the general population, showed that HFS patients had a higher chance of developing hypertension (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = (1.12, 2.31), p-value  <0.001). The prevalence of hypertension was higher in HFS patients as compared to non-HFS patients. This meta-analysis highlights a positive correlation between hypertension and HFS. Blood pressure should be closely monitored during the follow-up of HFS patients. Preliminary links between ventrolateral medullary (VLM) compression and HFS should be further evaluated in future studies.