Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36198445›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms in adults who are high users of healthcare services and magnitude of associated costs: a systematic review.

Ferozkhan Jadhakhan, Daniel Romeu, Oana Lindner, Amy Blakemore, Elspeth Guthrie

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Make diagnostic doubt visible in healthcare.Future healthcare journal · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The challenge of persistent physical symptoms.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ferozkhan JadhakhanCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK F.Jadhakhan@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4545-3703
Daniel RomeuLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.
Oana LindnerPatient-Centred Outcomes Research Group, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Amy BlakemoreDivision of Nursing, Social Work and Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0972-100X
Elspeth GuthrieSchool of Medicine, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Room 10.39, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5834-6616
University of Leeds · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is a common clinical syndrome in primary and secondary healthcare service. Outcomes for patients with persistent MUS include increased disability, poorer quality of life and higher healthcare costs. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of MUS in patients who are high users of healthcare or high-cost patients in comparison with routine users and the magnitude of associated costs.

designA systematic review of the available literature. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The following electronic databases were systematically searched without language restriction from inception to June 2018 and updated on 22 October 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and PROSPERO. Inclusion criteria included studies investigating adults aged ≥18 years, who were high healthcare users or accrued high healthcare costs, in which the prevalence and/or associated costs of MUS was quantified. Two reviewers independently extracted information on study characteristics, exposure and outcomes.

resultsFrom 5622 identified publications, 25 studies from 9 countries involving 31 650 patients were selected for inclusion. Due to high risk of bias in many studies and heterogeneity between studies, results are described narratively. There were wide variations in prevalence estimates for MUS in high users of healthcare (2.9%-76%), but MUS was more prevalent in high use groups compared with low use groups in all but one of the 12 studies that included a comparator group. Only three studies investigated healthcare costs associated with MUS, and all three reported greater healthcare costs associated with MUS.

conclusionMUS has been found to be more prevalent in high use healthcare populations than comparator groups, but the magnitude of difference is difficult to estimate due to considerable heterogeneity between studies and potential for bias. Future studies should prioritise a standardised approach to this research area, with agreed definitions of MUS and high healthcare use. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100388.

Indexed as

Medically Unexplained SymptomsAdolescentAdultHealth Care CostsHealth ServicesHumansPrevalenceQuality of Lifeadult psychiatryepidemiologyhealth economicsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID36198445
PMCPMC9535167
OpenAlexW4302011034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.