Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) - articles, social media and discussion

[Liie]

But there are two completely incompatible claims here!!
One that it is rare and one that it is the second most common.

It seem like a weird contradiction. One explanation:

This statement:

In 2010, FND was found to be the second most common reason for new outpatient neurological evaluation [51].

...is supported with a source which says this:

The commonest categories of diagnosis made were: headache (19%), functional and psychological symptoms (16%), ...

To me it seems like a misinterpretation of "functional and psychological symptoms" to always imply FND. So they hugely exaggerate how common FND is.

 

[Yann04]

Didn’t David write about some inflated FND prevalence claims coming from Carson or Stone.

 

[Liie]

Didn’t David write about some inflated FND prevalence claims coming from Carson or Stone.

It seems to be exactly this!

Correspondence: Inaccurate reference leads to tripling of reported FND prevalence - PMC

Perez et al asserted that FND is the "2nd most common" diagnosis in outpatient neurology. Stone et al (2010), cited by Perez et al, does not support the “2nd most common” claim. In Stone et al, a broad “functional/psychological” category was the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Also signed by among others Jonathan Edwards, Mady Hornig, Brian Hughes and David Putrino.

 

[forestglip]

Didn’t David write about some inflated FND prevalence claims coming from Carson or Stone.

Oh yeah, about this very claim/study:

Finally, Our Letter on Inflated Claims of FND Prevalence Is Published – Trial By Error

These untrue claims about the Scottish Neurological Symptoms Study (SNSS)—specifically, that the prevalence of FND among outpatient neurology clinics was 16% and/or that it the second-most-common diagnosis–have been repeated in more than 50 papers in the last dozen year.

Of the 16% in the SNSS identified as having FND, two-thirds were identified as having “psychological” diagnoses and symptoms that could not fully be explained by neurological disease. However, as we noted in our letter, there is no evidence that any of these additional 10% met or could have met the rule-in criteria for FND. The fact that their symptoms could not fully be accounted does not justify a post-hoc, categorical reinterpretation of their diagnoses as FND.

That ultimately led to a letter that was finally published this week by the journal NeuroImage: Clinical after a somewhat tortuous journey. I have posted it in full below.

Previously discussed: https://www.s4me.info/threads/neuro...-edwards-hallet-stone-et-al.21323/post-501444

Edit: crossposted with Liie.