ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2023
Preliminary validation of the Klenico diagnostic software self-report module through comparison with the diagnostic gold standard in an outpatient routine clinical sample.
Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inaccuracy in current diagnostic procedures for mental disorders can lead to misdiagnosis and increase the burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, Klenico, a diagnostic software designed to support comprehensive and efficient clinical diagnostic procedures that is easy to apply in everyday clinical practice, was developed. This study aimed to take the first step toward validating the Klenico self-report module. Methods: Data of 115 patients from a German psychotherapeutic outpatient clinic were included in this study. Criterion validity was tested by comparing Klenico with the diagnoses based on the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Construct validity was investigated by comparing Klenico with commonly used self-reporting questionnaires. Results: The results showed that most of the Klenico disorder domains were able to differentiate between corresponding diagnoses and other diagnoses, confirming criterion validity. Construct validity was demonstrated by high correlations with the compared convergent questionnaire scales and non-significant or low correlations with most of the divergent scales. Conclusions: These preliminary results demonstrate the psychometric properties of the Klenico self-report module and imply that the Klenico system has high potential to improve the accuracy of diagnostic procedures in everyday clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.