ReviewBrain communications2025
Going 'meta': a systematic review of metacognition and functional neurological disorder.
Review in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards an integrative neuroscience of metacognition.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Cognition and metacognition in functional motor symptoms and functional seizures: a case-control study.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- The Functional Neurological Disorder special collection inBrain communications · 2026Article
- Respiratory sensitivity is reduced in functional neurological disorder and associated with higher somatoform dissociation.Brain communications · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In functional neurological disorder (FND), there is a fundamental disconnect between an apparently intact nervous system and the individuals' ability to consistently perform motor actions, perceive sensory signals and/or access effective cognition. Metacognition, the capacity to self-evaluate cognitive performance, appears highly relevant to FND pathophysiology. Poor metacognition is a potential mechanism via which abnormal models of self and the state of the world could arise and persist unchecked. There is therefore a justified enthusiasm that studies of metacognition may give substance to FND's intangible nature. However, many assume an impairment in metacognition even though experimental studies are still in their infancy. This systematic review provides an analytical checkpoint of the evidence after the first five years of experimental work. We firstly summarize current methods for testing metacognition, prerequisite knowledge that allows readers to independently evaluate the evidence. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we then screened the 21 articles on this topic and review the experimental data of the eight studies that specifically tested metacognition in subjects with FND. Questionnaire metrics used to estimate global metacognition and general confidence in FND revealed a mixed picture of low or normal confidence. Of the five studies that used performance-controlled metrics, the gold-standard to estimate local metacognition in FND, four found metacognition to be equivalent to healthy controls and one paper supported impaired metacognition. We consequently try and broaden the debate and discuss alternative headline scenarios. We review how positive studies may offer insight and debate whether null studies could represent false negatives. However, since most studies find equivalent metacognition to controls, we also discuss whether metacognition could be intact and how this could inform mechanistic models of FND and have potential clinical utility. In summary, this review highlights signal of interest within the data, exposes current limitations and flags the many open questions.
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.