Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37169545›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2023

Distinguishing functional from primary tics: a study of expert video assessments.

Antigony Rigas, Tina Mainka, Tamara Pringsheim, Alexander Münchau, Irene Malaty, Yulia Worbe, Andrea E Cavanna, Andrew John Lees, Anthony E Lang, Davide Martino and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

11 authors.

Antigony RigasDepartment of Neurology, Charité Medical Faculty Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Tina MainkaDepartment of Neurology, Charité Medical Faculty Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0597-2648
Tamara PringsheimMathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Alexander MünchauInstitute of Systems Motor Science, Center of Brain, Behavior and Metabolism, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Irene MalatyDepartment of Neurology, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, University of Florida, USA.
Yulia WorbeICM, Inserm, CNRS, Department of Neurophysiology, Hôpital Saint Antoine (DMU 6), AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5903-9370
Andrea E CavannaDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, BSMHFT and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew John LeesReta Lila Weston Institute of Neurological Studies, Institute of Neurology University College London, London, UK.
Anthony E LangEdmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease, Morton and Gloria Shulman Movement Disorders Clinic, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1229-3667
Davide Martino *Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2217-0487
Christos Ganos *Department of Neurology, Charité Medical Faculty Berlin, Berlin, Germany christos.ganos@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8077-8530

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliably applied criteria to differentiate functional from primary tics are lacking. In the absence of biological markers, the development of new diagnostic criteria to assist clinicians is predicated on expert judgement and consensus. This study examines the level of diagnostic agreement of experts in tic disorders using video footage and clinical descriptions.

methodsUsing a two-part survey, eight experts in the diagnosis and management of tics were first asked to study 24 case videos of adults with primary tics, functional tics or both and to select a corresponding diagnosis. In the second part of the survey, additional clinical information was provided, and the diagnosis was then reconsidered. Inter-rater agreement was measured using Fleiss' kappa. In both study parts, the factors which influenced diagnostic decision-making and overall diagnostic confidence were reviewed.

resultsBased on phenomenology alone, the diagnostic agreement among the expert raters was only fair for the pooled diagnoses (κ=0.21) as well as specifically for functional (κ=0.26) and primary tics (κ=0.24). Additional clinical information increased overall diagnostic agreement to moderate (κ=0.51) for both functional (κ=0.6) and primary tics (κ=0.57). The main factors informing diagnosis were tic semiology, age at tic onset, presence of premonitory urges, tic suppressibility, the temporal latency between tic onset and peak severity, precipitants and tic triggers and changes in the overall phenotypic presentation.

conclusionsThis study confirmed that in the absence of clinical information, the diagnostic distinction between primary and functional tics is often difficult, even for expert clinicians.

Indexed as

Tic DisordersTicsTourette SyndromeAdultHumansFUNCTIONAL NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERTOURETTE SYNDROME

Identifiers

PMID37169545
PMCPMC10447361

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.