Trial reportEpilepsia2026
Do witnesses of functional/dissociative seizures recall them accurately? A UK experimental study of semiology recall at clinically relevant time points with a pilot intervention.
Trial report in Epilepsia, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDifferent causes of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) carry distinct risks and require different management. Early accurate diagnosis is essential to guide counseling, investigation, and referral. In routine practice, frontline clinicians and specialists often rely on eyewitness accounts, yet the reliability of witness testimony for functional/dissociative seizures (FDSs) is unknown. We, for the first time, evaluated eyewitness recall of a single FDS immediately and after clinically relevant delays of 2 and 7 weeks, reflecting waiting times for specialist assessment in the United Kingdom (UK) and elsewhere. We also examined the relationship between confidence and accuracy, and whether early structured questioning improves later recall.
methodsIn this UK-based experimental study, general population adults (≥18) viewed a video of an FDS and were randomized to four conditions: A (immediate free recall + 2-week follow-up), B (immediate free recall + 7-week follow-up), C (immediate systematic questioning + 2-week follow-up), and D (immediate systematic questioning + 7-week follow-up). The primary outcome was accuracy on 15 standardized semiology questions, scored against consensus ratings from five neurologists.
resultsOf 300 participants, 286 (95.3%) viewed the video in full; 90% completed follow-up. Immediately afterward, participants answered only 67.0% of questions correctly. Accuracy declined to 58.8% at 2 weeks and was a further 5.4% lower at 7 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.07-8.73). Features sometimes considered diagnostically informative-asynchronous limb movements, head movements, ictal eye closure-were prone to decay. Confidence was weakly associated with accuracy. Immediate systematic questioning did not improve follow-up recall compared with free recall (-2.9, 95% CI = -6.3 to .5). SIGNIFICANCE: Eyewitness recall of FDSs is modest and declines over clinically relevant intervals, and confidence poorly reflects accuracy. Early structured questioning did not improve retention. These findings highlight a key constraint on diagnostic accuracy in TLOC. Strategies to support differentiation in routine care are needed.
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.