ArticlePloS one2024
Can internal medicine specialists diagnose functional somatic disorders (FSDs)? Training and comparison with FSD specialists.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Who benefits from multidisciplinary care in functional somatic disorders? Identifying cost-effective patient selection through diagnostic classification groups.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional somatic disorders (FSD) are a common problem across medical settings and remain challenging to diagnose and treat. Many patients with FSD undergo sequential and unnecessary extensive diagnostic work-up, which is costly for society and stressful for patients. Previous studies have shown that the empirically based FSD diagnostic entities are interrater reliable and stable over time.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate whether internists who have received adequate training and with sufficient time per patient could diagnose FSD.
designThis was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. The study was conducted from May 2020 to April 2022.
participantsThe study included 27 consecutive patients referred by their general practitioner to a non-psychiatric diagnostic clinic for assessment of physical symptoms on suspicion of FSD.
interventionsThe internists received a 30-hour training course in the use of a tailored version of the SCAN interview. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome measure was the agreement between the diagnoses of the internists and the reference diagnoses made by specialists in FSD on the basis of the full SCAN interview. KEY
resultsThe interrater agreement between the internists and the FSD experts was substantial for any FSD (kappa = 0.63) as well as multi-organ vs. single-organ FSD (kappa = 0.73), indicating good diagnostic agreement.
conclusionsInternists with proper training and sufficient time (3-4 hours) per patient can proficiently diagnose FSD employing a tailored version of the SCAN interview for use in a non-psychiatric diagnostic setting.
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.