ArticleFrontiers in digital health2023
Assessing validity of the Klenico diagnostic software system in a large psychotherapeutic inpatient sample.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measurement Properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and Somatic Symptom Scale-8: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
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
Introduction: Mental disorders are often underdiagnosed in routine diagnostic procedures due to the use of unstandardized assessments; this can result in people either not receiving necessary treatment or receiving ineffective treatment for their condition. Klenico is an online diagnostic software system that facilitates diagnosis of mental disorders in adults through the use of standardized procedures. The procedure encompasses two modules, self-report and clinical validation. The current study aimed to confirm the validity of the Klenico assessment in a large clinical sample. Methods: Fully anonymized data from 495 adult inpatients were used. ICD-10 diagnoses were made during an initial interview by the clinical staff. Afterwards, patients filled out self-report questionnaires (BDI-II, BSI, EDE-Q, OCI-R, PHQ-D, and Y-BOCS) and completed the Klenico self-report module, which involves selecting and rating the severity of applicable symptoms. Finally, in the clinical validation module, mental health professionals validated the symptoms endorsed in the self-report module. Six Klenico domains were tested against patient self-reports and routine ICD-10 diagnoses by following the multitrait-multimethod approach. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha. Results: The Klenico depressive disorders, OCD, and somatoform disorders domains revealed high correlations with the congruent questionnaires (i.e., those pertaining to these specific disorders) and revealed low correlations with the noncongruent questionnaires (i.e., those pertaining to other disorders), therefore evidencing construct validity. For the eating disorders and psychotic disorders domains, divergent validity was demonstrated. For the anxiety disorders domain, although analysis mostly indicated construct validity, this should be further confirmed. Discussion: Overall, the results largely confirmed the construct validity of the Klenico assessment, demonstrating its use as an easy-to-use, valid, standardized, and comprehensive instrument for diagnosing mental disorders.
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.