ReviewSeminars in neurology2026
The Medicolegal Implications of Functional Neurological Disorder.
Review in Seminars in neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abstract: Functional neurological disorder (FND) commonly arises in the context of injury, trauma, or litigation and poses distinctive medicolegal challenges. This review outlines how positive clinical signs and contemporary neurobiological models support FND as a robust diagnosis, while distinguishing it from factitious disorder and malingering. We discuss approaches to assessing authenticity of reported disability, the role and limitations of symptom and performance validity tests, and the pitfalls of equating inconsistency with deception. We then consider causation within common legal frameworks using a predisposing-precipitating-perpetuating model to analyze the contribution of index events, background vulnerabilities, and the litigation process itself. Finally, we summarize current evidence on treatment and prognosis, highlighting the limits of prediction and the need to offer courts transparent, probabilistic opinions on long-term outcome and care needs. Our aim is to support clinicians in providing balanced, clinically grounded expert evidence for patients with FND.
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.