Cited by 21Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders

Identifying and evaluating novel treatment targets for the development of evidence-based interventions for Functional Neurological Disorder

Open access
Fobian, Aaron D., Szaflarski, Jerzy P.·2021·Epilepsy & Behavior Reports

Abstract

Historically, functional neurological disorder (FND) has been described in psychodynamic terms as the physical manifestation of psychological distress. It is often explained to patients and caregivers as the result of anxiety, stress, trauma or other psychiatric comorbidities. However, recent evidence indicates that targeting mood and stress is not equivalent to the treatment of FND and may have limited to no effect on FND symptoms. Given the few randomized controlled trials for FND treatments and the limited evidence of mood and stress as effective treatment targets, the identification and evaluation of novel treatment targets or mediators is an area of great opportunity and should be the focus of future research. Identifying and targeting modifiable disease mechanisms directly as opposed to only treating psychiatric comorbidities may result in greater efficacy in treating FND symptoms, better patient outcomes and lower healthcare costs. Several novel mechanisms have been identified that warrant additional investigation as potential treatment targets including abnormal attentional focus on the affected area, beliefs and expectations about illness, impairments in habituation, and decreased sense of control over actions. Future intervention studies should take a mechanism-based approach and utilize valid and reliable measures or specific biomarkers to determine whether improvements in FND symptoms are associated with changes in the treatment targets. This transdiagnostic approach will allow researchers to translate the novel mechanistic outcomes emerging from neurophysiological and neuroscience studies into new or improved evidence-based approaches to FND treatment and prevention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ebr.2021.100479

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Expectations regarding negative or catastrophic symptoms and a low sense of control over symptoms have been identified as important factors for maintaining FND symptoms, including functional seizures.

    “In addition, expectations regarding negative or catastrophic symptoms (known as “catastrophic symptom expectations”) and a low sense of control over symptoms have been identified as important factors for maintaining FND symptoms (including functional seizures) [67,68].”

    From Illness-Promoting Psychological Processes in Children and Adolescents with Functional Neurological Disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [68]

    The paper identifies beliefs and expectations about illness and decreased sense of control as potential treatment targets for FND (section labeled Abstract; page unavailable). It also reports that a treatment targeting catastrophic symptom expectations and sense of control reduced functional seizures in children. But it says these targets need further investigation and have not been confirmed as the mechanisms of improvement, so it does not establish them as factors maintaining symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fobian, A. D., & Szaflarski, J. P.
Affiliations
University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Corresponding author
Fobian, Aaron D.
Venue
Epilepsy & Behavior Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
Volume
16
Pages
100479
ISSN
2589-9864 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3198609849
Cited by
21
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epilepsy & Behavior Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Keywords
conversion disorder, treatment goals, disease mechanisms, attentional focus, habituation, perceived control, transdiagnostic approach, biomarkers, psychodynamic model, psychiatric comorbidity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review