Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41709912›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2026

Functional sensory symptoms and signs: a case-control study of 102 patients.

Glenn Nielsen, Rory Higgins, Jon Stone, Jan Coebergh, Mark J Edwards

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2026. 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. Article
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

5 authors.

Glenn NielsenNeuroscience and Cell Biology Research Institute, City St George's, University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6053-5670
Rory HigginsNeuroscience and Cell Biology Research Institute, City St George's, University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.
Jon StoneCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9829-8092
Jan CoeberghDepartment of Neurology, Ashford St.Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey KT16 0PZ, UK.
Mark J EdwardsDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite being frequently reported by patients, the prevalence, character and clinical relevance of sensory symptoms in functional neurological disorder (FND) is unknown. This study aimed to (i) estimate the frequency and explore the characteristics of sensory symptoms and signs (excluding the special senses) in patients with motor-FND, (ii) compare these features to patients with recent stroke, and (iii) investigate potential mechanisms underlying functional sensory symptoms. In this prospective observational cohort study, 102 patients with motor-FND and 75 patients with recent stroke were assessed using structured clinical interviews, body maps, validated questionnaires, clinical assessment and quantitative sensory testing. Motor-FND participants were followed up at 12-months. Data were analysed using thematic analysis for symptom description, descriptive statistics for frequency and regression models to explore predictors of symptom severity and change. Sensory symptoms were highly prevalent in motor-FND, reported by 96% compared to 67% of mild to moderate recent stroke. However, 27% of motor-FND and 36% of stroke only endorsed experiencing sensory symptoms after prompting. Motor-FND participants described a broader spectrum of sensory experiences compared to stroke, including numbness, paraesthesia, movement-related perceptions and abstract descriptions. Feelings of limb absence/'feels dead' (19% versus 1%) and areas of complete sensory absence (27% versus 15%) were more commonly reported in individuals with FND than in mild-moderate stroke. The motor-FND group experienced pain more frequently than the stroke group (88% versus 41%) and more frequently endorsed having a high pain tolerance (70% versus 49%). The distribution of sensory symptoms differed from the distribution of pain. Sensory symptoms were often perceived as severe and associated with disability and depression. Conflation of the concepts of weakness and numbness was common in both groups (21% of motor-FND versus 10% of stroke). Only one-third of motor-FND patients reported improvement in sensory symptoms at 12 months. Dissociation, body perceptual disturbance and sensory hypersensitivity were significantly more common in motor-FND. Dense midline splitting of light touch or splitting of vibration sense across the forehead or sternum were uncommon and had poor diagnostic specificity, but asymmetries in vibration sense were more common in motor-FND. Quantitative sensory testing provided no clear added diagnostic value. Sensory symptoms in motor-FND vary in nature, are highly prevalent, persistent, clinically significant and often linked to broader illness burden and psychological distress. Sensory symptoms should be routinely assessed in FND, both for diagnosis and treatment planning. Future research should evaluate targeted interventions to specifically address sensory symptoms within multidisciplinary rehabilitation frameworks.

Indexed as

FNDfunctional neurological disordersensationstroke

Identifiers

PMID41709912
PMCPMC12909258

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.