Cited by 368Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders

The prognosis of functional (psychogenic) motor symptoms: a systematic review

Gelauff, J., Stone, J., Edwards, M., Carson, A.·2014·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

Background The prognosis of functional (or psychogenic) motor symptoms (weakness and movement disorder) has not been systematically reviewed. Methods We systematically reviewed PubMed for all studies of eight or more patients with functional motor symptoms reporting follow-up data longer than 6 months (excluding studies reporting specific treatments). We recorded symptom duration, physical and psychiatric comorbidity, disability, occupational functioning at follow-up and prognostic factors. Results 24 studies were included. There was heterogeneity regarding study size (number of patients (n)=10 491), follow-up duration clinical setting and data availability. Most studies (n=15) were retrospective. Reported symptom outcome was highly variable. Mean weighted follow-up duration was 7.4 years (in 13 studies where data was extractable). The mean percentage of patients same or worse at follow-up for all studies was 39%, range 10% to 90%, n=1134. Levels of physical disability and psychological comorbidity at follow-up were high. Short duration of symptoms, early diagnosis and high satisfaction with care predicted positive outcome in two studies. Gender had no effect. Delayed diagnosis and personality disorder were negatively correlated with outcome. Prognostic factors that varied between studies included age, comorbid anxiety and depression, IQ, educational status, marital status and pending litigation. Conclusions Existing follow-up studies of functional motor symptoms give us some…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305321

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gelauff, J., Stone, J., Edwards, M., & Carson, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Corresponding author
Stone, J.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-09-12
Volume
85
Issue
2
Pages
220-226
ISSN
0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115088030
Cited by
368
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
psychogenic movement disorders, prognosis, prognostic factors, symptom duration, physical disability, psychiatric comorbidity, anxiety, depression, personality disorders, early diagnosis, occupational functioning, natural history (disease)
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Conversion Disorder, Disability Evaluation, Employment, Humans, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Comorbidity, Symptom Assessment

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