Structural brain MRI features of patients with mixed FND were distinguishable from both healthy and psychiatric control participants, with subtype analyses showing high specificity (0.83) in accurately classifying individuals with functional motor disorder versus healthy controls.
Again, if it has an objective structural feature then how can it be classified as functional?
They really are tying themselves, and their patients, up in rhetorical knots.
'They' seem keen on distinctions between "healthy and psychiatric control" when 'they' view pwFND as entirely in psychological/behavioural terms.
For example, the CBT model of non epileptic seizures used in the CODES trial is that patients have 'anxiety that isn't anxiety.' CODES failed so that's been difficult for them. Their reflections article is an exercise in non reflection. At no point do they refect on whether their view of FND or construct is flawed.
There is, I suspect, perhaps some censorship going on too! For example, I have posted and reposted to the CODES reflection piece my thoughts in calm, polite manner in a Rapid Response. I need to check again but I suspect it has not been posted. I also submitted letter re CODES that got rejected as The Lancet was focusing on Covid at the time. As if that actually made a difference, it was an excuse.
I'm collecting my thoughts later this week and next for an NHS chronic pain psychologists SIG meeting re FND on 9th Oct. I'm leading and it will be interesting to hear what my colleagues are experiencing in their clinics.
Before my leave for surgery etc earlier in the year, I was occasionally meeting chronic pain patients in my clinic with FND labels who had travelled via neurology to us. None of them understood how this helped them. I recall one male pt being told 'it's like between MS and Parkinsons'. And more recently a lady who had had CBT for FND which did not help..... Confused her.
FND can mean all things to all people. Catch all for pretty much anything but it often includes CFS, FMS, movement disorders, and non epileptic seizures etc., with issues for validity, reliability etc. Overtly heterogeneous just like MUS, SSD etc. Entirely unfalsifiable.
The confident claims for definitive ""we know" what it/they are in terms of multiple different conditions, and then little objective reality or coherent thinking. Just like Richard Brown's claims in The Psychologist in 2013 "Explaining the Unexplained". It's just stuff they think is true. Misdiagnosis is to them a minimal triviality. It is seductive to some (patients and clinicians) and it will, I fear, have legs in the way MUS did not. For those that are misdiagnosed there will be, I suspect, minimal access to accountability.
It really does seem incredibly hard for some neurologists (and it seems A&E doctors who are apparently in some quarters handing out FND labels....) to say "I/we dunno...." And to some clinicians and patients it will mean just that, even though the models of treatment are 100% psychobehavioural (as in curable CBT/GET type therapy). So much unethical duplicity straight to the patients face and much confusion. Minimal humility in the face of things we dunno what causes them.
FND adds nothing of clinical or practical value to pt care. Will lead to more referrals and time wasting for pts and NHS. Likely piss pts off when they get wind of it, end up feeling more isolated, marginalised and ashamed. Precisely the opposite of good care.