ArticleJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2026
Multicentre validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for functional movement disorders.
Article in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 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.
- A randomized controlled trial protocol of herbal formulas for modifying susceptible body constitution to enhance COVID-19 resistance in Hong Kong residents.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo disorder-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) has yet been validated for functional movement disorders (FMDs), leaving a critical gap in clinical care and research.
objectiveTo validate the FMD questionnaire (FMDQ) in a prospectively recruited sample through a multicentre study.
methodsConfirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) tested the assumed structure of the questionnaire with factors reflecting severity of motor symptoms, impairment of everyday activities, impact of non-motor symptoms and impairment of social functioning. Internal consistency and floor/ceiling effects were examined. The 36-item short form health survey (SF-36), patient health questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), the fatigue assessment scale (FAS) and a clinician-rated scale corresponding to motor symptom items of the FMDQ (FMDQ-CR) were used to test criterion and construct validity. The minimally clinically important difference (MCID) was assessed through distribution-based and anchor-based methods in a convenience sample of patients with follow-up assessments.
resultsComplete datasets from 157 patients were analysed; follow-up assessments were available from 30 patients. CFA confirmed that a four-factor model provides a better fit to the data compared with a more restrictive one-factor model. Internal consistency was appropriate for all factors/subscales. No floor or ceiling effects were detected. Criterion and content validity were supported by significant correlations with respective SF-36 subscores, PHQ-15, FAS and FMDQ-CR. Anchor-based MCID was estimated at 8 to 20 points, with the central value aligning with the distribution-based MCID of 12 points (8% of the total score range).
conclusionsThe FMDQ is a psychometrically robust PROM, making it a useful tool for clinical practice and treatment trials.
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.