ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
Development of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Trajectories After Hospitalization for COVID-19: A 36-Month Longitudinal Study.The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- Subjective estimation of cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment: relationship with neurodegenerative and non-degenerative factors.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Preliminary Validation of the FCD-Q8 Tool in Functional Cognitive Disorder and Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Biomarker-Verified Case-Control Study.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Positive Clinical Signs in Functional Neurological Disorders: A Narrative Review and Development of a Clinical Decision Tool.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Risk, Precipitating, and Perpetuating Factors in Functional Neurological Disorder: A Systematic Review Across Clinical Subtypes.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
51 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to other neurocognitive disorders and limited biomarker accuracy. We aimed to develop a new diagnostic checklist to identify FCD versus other neurocognitive disorders. Methods: The clinical checklist was developed through mixed methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a three-round Delphi study with 45 clinicians from 12 countries and (3) a pilot discriminative accuracy study in consecutive patients attending seven memory services across the UK. Items gathering consensus were incorporated into a pilot checklist. Item redundancy was evaluated with phi coefficients. A briefer checklist was produced by removing items with >10% missing data. Internal validity was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Optimal cut-off scores were determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: A full 11-item checklist and a 7-item briefer checklist were produced. Overall, 239 patients (143 FCD, 96 non-FCD diagnoses) were included. The checklist scores were significantly different across subgroups (FCD and other neurocognitive disorders) (F(2, 236)=313.3, p<0.001). The area under the curve was excellent for both the full checklist (0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99) and its brief version (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98). Optimal cut-off scores corresponded to a specificity of 97% and positive predictive value of 91% for identifying FCD. Both versions showed good internal validity (>0.80). Conclusions: This pilot study shows that a brief clinical checklist may serve as a quick complementary tool to differentiate patients with neurodegeneration from those with FCD. Prospective blind large-scale validation in diverse populations is warranted.Cite Now.
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.