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.
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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bipedal static posturography is widely used to assess postural control. However, standardized methods and evidence on the influence of footwear on balance in comparison to barefoot stance is sparse. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Is bipedal static posturography applied in a standardized way with respect to demographics and the experimental set-up (systematic review)? Does habitual footwear influence postural control in comparison to barefoot condition during bipedal static posturography in adult patients and healthy subjects (meta-analysis)? METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a comprehensive follow-up literature search was conducted from March 2009 until January 2020 according to the PRISMA guidelines. Original, research articles reporting on bipedal, unsupported, static posturography in adults (≥18 years) were included according to inclusion criteria (age, sex, height, weight, duration, repetitions, visual/foot condition, sampling frequency). Studies comparing habitual footwear with barefoot condition during bipedal static posturography were included for the meta-analysis. Center of pressure parameters (sway velocity, range, root mean square, paths lengths) with subjects having eyes closed (EC) or open (EO) were analyzed using random effects models. RESULTS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, 207 and eight out of 5189 studies with 12'341 and 156 subjects, respectively, were eligible. Most studies (89%) reported barefoot, 5% shod, and 6% barefoot and shod measurements. Less than half of studies (44%) included patients of which the minority (13%) suffered from neurological disease. Sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction was higher in habitual shoes compared to barefoot with EC (SMD: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.68-1.48; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), with EO (SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.11-1.26; p = 0.02; I2 = 1%), and in the medio-lateral direction with EC (SMD: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.76-1.85, p < 0.01; I2 = 37%). SIGNIFICANCE: Methodical heterogeneity of bipedal static posturography hampers studies' comparability. Thus, we provide a standardized approach to increase knowledge whether habitual footwear decrease postural control in comparison to barefoot stance.
