Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40190588›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025

Cost Utility of Specialist Physiotherapy for Functional Motor Disorder (Physio4FMD): Economic Analysis of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rachael Maree Hunter, Glenn Nielsen, Marie Le Novere, Louise Marston, Teresa C Lee, Jon Stone, Laura H Goldstein, Alan Carson, Kate Holt, Jonathan Marsden and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The economic burden of functional neurological disorder.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Rachael Maree HunterDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-8934
Glenn NielsenNeuroscience Research Centre, Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6053-5670
Louise MarstonDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9973-1131
Teresa C LeeDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0917-860X
Jon StoneCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9829-8092
Laura H GoldsteinDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9387-3035
Alan CarsonCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Kate HoltNeuroscience Research Centre, Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9529-2420
Jonathan MarsdenFaculty of Health, School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2037-4902
Irwin NazarethDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2146-9628
Hayley NobleNeuroscience Research Centre, Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4267-1609
Markus ReuberAcademic Neurology Unit, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4104-6705
Ann-Marie StrudwickNeuroscience, Research and Innovation, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2817-5219
Beatriz Santana SuarezNeuroscience Research Centre, Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1902-8332
Mark J EdwardsDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8283-9015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Functional motor disorder (FMD), a motor-dominant variant of functional neurologic disorder, is a disabling condition associated with high health and social care resource use and poor employment outcomes. Specialist physiotherapy presents a possible treatment option, but there is limited evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Physio4FMD is a multicenter randomized controlled trial of specialist physiotherapy for FMD compared with treatment as usual (TAU). The aim of the analysis was to conduct a randomized trial based on economic evaluation of specialist physiotherapy compared with TAU. Methods: Eleven centers in England and Scotland randomized participants 1:1 to specialist physiotherapy or TAU (referral to community neurologic physiotherapy). Participants completed the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, Client Service Receipt Inventory, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for specialist physiotherapy compared with TAU over 12 months was calculated from a health and social care and wider societal perspective. The probability of cost-effectiveness and 95% CIs were calculated using bootstrapping. Results: The analysis included 247 participants (n = 141 for specialist physiotherapy, n = 106 for TAU). The mean cost per participant for specialist physiotherapy was £646 (SD 72) compared with £272 (SD 374) for TAU. Including the costs of treatment, the adjusted mean health and social care cost per participant at 12 months for specialist physiotherapy was £3,814 (95% CI £3,194-£4,433) compared with £3,670 (95% CI £2,931-£4,410) for TAU, with a mean incremental cost of £143 (95% CI £-825 to £1,112). There was no significant difference in QALYs over the 12-month duration of the trial (0.030, 95% CI -0.007 to 0.067). The mean incremental cost per QALY was £4,133 with an 86% probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000 threshold. When broader societal costs such as loss of productivity were taken into consideration, specialist physiotherapy was dominant (incremental cost: £-5,169, 95% CI £-15,394 to £5,056). Discussion: FMD was associated with high health and social care costs. There is a high probability that specialist physiotherapy is cost-effective compared with TAU particularly when wider societal costs are taken into account. Trial Registration Information: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN56136713.

Identifiers

PMID40190588
PMCPMC11970929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.