This article performs a systemic review of psychometric properties of Internet Addiction Test (IAT)—the most widely used tool for assessing Internet addiction in clinic and research field. Studies measuring psychometric properties of IAT (original version) were searched through MEDLINE, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and Embase. A total of 25 studies including 18,421 subjects were reviewed in our study. Based on meta-analysis for internal consistency, the pooled Cronbach's alpha coefficient from college/university students with a single department subgroup was 0.90 (95percent confidence interval [CI], 0.89–0.91), and that from middle-/high-school students (older than 15 years) subgroup was 0.93 (95 percent CI, 0.92–0.93). According to test–retest analysis, the pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient from college/university students with a single department subgroup was high at 0.83 (95 percent CI, 0.81–0.85), along with low publication bias. Convergent validity showed correlation coefficients of 0.62–0.84, as compared with major tools. For construct validity, the number of factors is believed to be 1–2, only considering studies that followed the guidelines. IAT appears to have acceptable internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity in specific groups. To verify these values, well-designed evidence-based studies assessing psychometric properties of IAT across diverse populations are warranted.

Background: In the recent years, machine learning algorithms have been more widely and increasingly applied in biomedical fields. In particular, their application has been drawing more attention in the field of psychiatry, for instance, as diagnostic tests/tools for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, given their complexity and potential clinical implications, there is an ongoing need for further research on their accuracy. Objective: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence for the accuracy of machine learning algorithms in diagnosing ASD. Methods: The following databases were searched on November 28, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete (with Open Dissertations), PsycINFO, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore Digital Library. Studies that used a machine learning algorithm partially or fully for distinguishing individuals with ASD from control subjects and provided accuracy measures were included in our analysis. The bivariate random effects model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was used to investigate and resolve the source of heterogeneity between studies. True-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative values from individual studies were used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity values, draw Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics curves, and obtain the area under the curve (AUC) and partial AUC (pAUC). Results: A total of 43 studies were included for the final analysis, of which a meta-analysis was performed on 40 studies (53 samples with 12,128 participants). A structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) subgroup meta-analysis (12 samples with 1776 participants) showed a sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.89), a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.91), and AUC/pAUC of 0.90/0.83. A functional magnetic resonance imaging/deep neural network subgroup meta-analysis (5 samples with 1345 participants) showed a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.62-0.75), specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.61-0.70), and AUC/pAUC of 0.71/0.67. Conclusions: The accuracy of machine learning algorithms for diagnosis of ASD was considered acceptable by few accuracy measures only in cases of sMRI use; however, given the many limitations indicated in our study, further well-designed studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning algorithms to clinical settings. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018117779; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=117779