Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26669977›Full record

ReviewBMC family practice2015

Bodily distress syndrome: A new diagnosis for functional disorders in primary care?

Anna Budtz-Lilly, Andreas Schröder, Mette Trøllund Rask, Per Fink, Mogens Vestergaard, Marianne Rosendal

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. RDoC Mechanisms Underlying Bodily Symptoms in Psychiatry: A Scoping Review.Psychology research and behavior management · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Budtz-LillyResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. anna.budtz-lilly@ph.au.dk.
Andreas SchröderResearch Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Andreas.Schroeder@aarhus.rm.dk.
Mette Trøllund RaskResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. merask@rm.dk.
Per FinkResearch Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. per.fink@aarhus.rm.dk.
Mogens VestergaardResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. mv@ph.au.dk.
Marianne RosendalResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. m.rosendal@ph.au.dk.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConceptualisation and classification of functional disorders appear highly inconsistent in the health-care system, particularly in primary care. Numerous terms and overlapping diagnostic criteria are prevalent of which many are considered stigmatising by general practitioners and patients. The lack of a clear concept challenges the general practitioner's decision-making when a diagnosis or a treatment approach must be selected for a patient with a functional disorder. This calls for improvements of the diagnostic categories. Intense debate has risen in connection with the release of the fifth version of the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' and the current revision of the 'International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'. We aim to discuss a new evidence based diagnostic proposal, bodily distress syndrome, which holds the potential to change our current approach to functional disorders in primary care. A special focus will be directed towards the validity and utility criteria recommended for diagnostic categorisation. DISCUSSION: A growing body of evidence suggests that the numerous diagnoses for functional disorders listed in the current classifications belong to one family of closely related disorders. We name the underlying phenomenon 'bodily distress'; it manifests as patterns of multiple and disturbing bodily sensations. Bodily distress syndrome is a diagnostic category with specific criteria covering this illness phenomenon. The category has been explored through empirical studies, which in combination provide a sound basis for determining a symptom profile, the diagnostic stability and the boundaries of the condition. However, as bodily distress syndrome embraces only the most common symptom patterns, patients with few but impairing symptoms are not captured. Furthermore, the current lack of treatment options may also influence the acceptance of the proposed diagnosis. Bodily distress syndrome is a diagnostic category with notable validity according to empirical studies. Nevertheless, knowledge is sparse on the utility in primary care. Future intervention studies should investigate the translation of bodily distress syndrome into clinical practice. A particular focus should be directed towards the acceptability among general practitioners and patients. Most importantly, it should be investigated whether the new category may provide the basis for better treatment and improved clinical outcome.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareDiagnosis, DifferentialGeneral PractitionersGlobal HealthHumansMorbidityPrevalenceSomatoform DisordersSyndrome

Identifiers

PMID26669977
PMCPMC4681035
OpenAlexW2216441011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.