ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2026
The economic burden of functional neurological disorder.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We provide an analysis of the economic burden of functional neurological disorder (FND). For a condition that is complex to diagnose and treat, estimating its true prevalence and incidence can be challenging. This estimation challenge has economic implications in terms of directing healthcare and other resources to mitigate the burden of FND. Existing economic analysis is limited, with most studies ignoring the wider social costs of FND, which are believed to be considerably higher than direct healthcare costs. This, in turn, affects the reliability of cost-effectiveness analysis. Using a number of existing studies, we provide an analysis of some of the challenges in estimating the true costs of FND. We revisit the debate around the appropriateness of cost-effectiveness analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus other frameworks, particularly generalised risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness (GRACE), in diseases like FND and its equity implications. Finally, we discuss how the probable underestimation of the economic burden of FND stifles innovation and dampens investment in promising technology. This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Digital healthcare for the management of functional neurological disorders'.
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.