ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
Biomarkers and Rehabilitation for Functional Neurological Disorder.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurofeedback for functional neurological disorders: future directions for research and clinical practice.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026Review
- Functional Neurological Disorder: Neurobiological Mechanisms, Biomarkers, and Integrated Treatment in a Female-Predominant Neuropsychiatric Condition.Neurology international · 2026Review
- Oxidative Imbalance in Conversion Disorder: Evidence from Thiol-Disulphide Homeostasis Disruption.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Functional neurological disorder, or FND, is widely misunderstood, particularly when considering recent research indicating that the illness has numerous biological markers in addition to its psychiatric disorder associations. Nonetheless, the long-held view that FND is a mental illness without a biological basis, or even a contrived (malingered) illness, remains pervasive both in current medical care and general society. This is because FND involves intermittent disability that rapidly and involuntarily alternates with improved neurological control. This has in turn caused shaming, perceived low self-efficacy, and social isolation for the patients. Until now, biomarker reviews for FND tended not to examine the features that are shared with canonical neurological disorders. This review, in contrast, examines current research on FND biomarkers, and in particular their overlap with canonical neurological disorders, along with the encouraging outcomes for numerous physical rehabilitation trials for FND. These findings support the perspective endorsed here that FND is unquestionably a neurological disorder that is also associated with many biological markers that lie outside of the central nervous system. These results suggest that FND entails multiple biological abnormalities that are widely distributed in the body. General healthcare providers would benefit their care for their patients through their improved understanding of the illness and recourses for support and treatment that are provided in this review.
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.