ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Testing the specificity of phenomenological criteria for functional tic-like behaviours in youth with Tourette syndrome.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathways to Care for Young People Diagnosed With Functional Tic Like Behaviours in the United Kingdom: An Online Mixed-Methods Survey.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Article
- Update on the Pathophysiology and Management of Tics.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- Neurodevelopmental Tics with Co-Morbid Functional Tic-like Behaviors: Diagnostic Challenges of a Complex Tourette Syndrome Phenotype.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Testing the specificity of phenomenological criteria for functional tic-like behaviours in youth with Tourette syndrome.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Functional Tic-like Behaviors: From the COVID-19 Pandemic to the Post-Pandemic Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe aim was to test the specificity of phenomenological criteria for functional tic-like behaviours (FTLBs). The European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome (ESSTS) criteria for the diagnosis of FTLBs include three major criteria: age at symptom onset ≥12 years, rapid evolution of symptoms and specific phenomenology.
methodsChildren and adolescents with primary tic disorders have been included in a Registry in Calgary, Canada, since 2017. Using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, the proportion of youth with primary tic disorders who met specific phenomenological criteria for FTLBs at first visit was assessed: (1) having ≥1 specific complex motor tic commonly seen in FTLBs, including complex arm/hand movements, self-injurious behaviour, blocking, copropraxia; (2) having ≥1 specific complex phonic tic commonly seen in FTLBs, including saying words, phrases, disinhibited speech, coprolalia; (3) having a greater number of complex tics than simple tics. Children seen for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and between 2021 and 2023 were analysed separately.
resultsOf 156 participants included between 2017 and 2019, high specificity (94.2%) of the age at onset criterion (≥12 years) and of having at least two complex motor behaviours and one complex phonic behaviour at first visit (96.2%) was observed. Some of the complex motor tics had lower specificity. The specificity of the FTLB diagnostic criterion of having more complex tics than simple tics was 89.7%. There was no significant difference in specificity of the criteria for children seen for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and between 2021 and 2023 (n = 149).
conclusionThis information supports the use of the ESSTS criteria for FTLBs in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.