App Reviews /

Clinicom Review

Clinicom Screenshots
Credibility

Credibility

3.18 / 5.00

Overall Score: 7/11

Clarity of Purpose: 2/2
Mechanism of Action: 1/1
Clinical Input in Development: 1/1
Research on Development Process: 1/1
Efficacy of Other Products: 0/1
Research Independence and Review: 1/2
Research Base: 1/3

Note: Consumer Ratings and Software Update Scores are not available for Web Apps

Rating Date: March 2022

Learn more about the Credibility Rating
User Experince

User Experience

Not Yet Available
Transparency

Transparency

Not Yet Available
Professional Reviews

Professional Review

Not Yet Available

Clinicom is a web-based application which provides a comprehensive evidence-based assessment to inform treatment for clients and mental health clinicians. Through a link provided by the provider, clients are given a list of questions which adapt based on the client’s responses. Clinicians can view the client’s results and are given a set of recommended diagnoses, with options to create follow up assessments and track client progress. Clinicom incorporates over 90 existing assessments into its proprietary assessment.

Technical Details

Available for: Web
Developer: Clinicom
Type of Treatment: Assessment/Screening
Targeted Conditions: Mood Disorders, Schizophrenia, Stress and Anxiety, PTSD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Phobias, Eating Disorders, Substance Use or Addiction, Sleep
Target Audience: Not Specified
Designed to be used in conjunction with a professional? Required
Languages Available: English
Get it on: Web 

Research on this App

In a validation and reliability test, CliniCom was compared with existing assessment tools for disorders which included Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and Social Phobia (SP). A total of 273 records were examined, including 54 for ADHD, 34 for GAD, 80 for MDD, 73 for OCD, and 32 for SP. Assessments for GAD (HAM-A), OCD (Y-BOCS), and MDD (PHQ-9) were the most concordant at 88.2%, 87.7%, and 82.5%, respectively. SP (SPIN) was 75.0% concordant and ADHD (NEBA) was 70.4% concordant. Diagnosis of ADHD with QbTest was discordant with the CliniCom outcomes, resulting in only a 33.3% match between the assessments. (Handal et al, 2018)

How we evaluate

We review apps against rating criteria developed by experts in the field. Some of those criteria are:

icon-Credibility

Credibility

We look at the research supporting the technology and the credibility of the development process.

icon-Transparent

Transparency

We review privacy policies to see if key pieces of information about what happens with entered data are addressed.

UserExperiencePG

User Experience

We explore how fun, functional, easy-to-use, engaging, and interesting the technology is.

ProfessionalReviews

Professional Reviews

A professional in a relevant field downloads and uses the technology and writes a narrative review, highlighting pros & cons and some recommendations for use.

Learn More About Our Criteria
;
One Mind Psyberguide Update
Thank you for your interest in One Mind PsyberGuide. Due to a loss of funding, we are no longer updating or maintaining the One Mind PsyberGuide website. Reviews have been updated as of the last date indicated on each review. Other activities at One Mind PsyberGuide stopped in June 2023. We hope this website can still serve as a resource for those interested in using technology to support people and their mental health. We thank everyone for their support of One Mind PsyberGuide over the years.