SynthesisActa neurologica Belgica2026
Metacognitive performance in Functional Cognitive Disorder (FCD): A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2026. 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.
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 Cognitive Disorder (FCD) is defined by persistent subjective cognitive complaints that are inconsistent with objective performance on neuropsychological testing. One leading hypothesis suggests that FCD may involve a dissociation between different forms of metacognition, particularly between global and local self-monitoring mechanisms.
objectiveTo quantitatively synthesize the evidence for global and local metacognitive performance in individuals with FCD through meta-analysis.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies measuring metacognitive performance in FCD, including comparisons with healthy controls and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Global metacognition was assessed using self-appraisal metrics, while local metacognition was measured using trial-by-trial confidence accuracy tools such as meta-d'/d'. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated and pooled using random-effects models.
resultsThree studies were included in the global metacognition analysis, revealing a large pooled effect size indicating impaired global metacognition in FCD (Cohen's d = - 1.07). One study assessed local metacognition and showed no impairment (Cohen's d = 0.00). This supports the proposed dissociation, with preserved local but disrupted global self-monitoring.
conclusionOur findings provide meta-analytic evidence for a substantial deficit in global metacognitive insight in individuals with FCD, while local metacognitive abilities remain relatively intact. These results offer a mechanistic explanation for the discrepancy between subjective complaints and objective test performance in FCD. Interventions targeting global metacognitive appraisal may enhance clinical outcomes. Given the very small number of eligible studies, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and viewed as preliminary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41428185What 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.