Outcome measurement in functional neurological disorder: a systematic review and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify existing outcome measures for functional neurological disorder (FND), to inform the development of recommendations and to guide future research on FND outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify existing FND-specific outcome measures and the most common measurement domains and measures in previous treatment studies. Searches of Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were conducted between January 1965 and June 2019. The findings were discussed during two international meetings of the FND-Core Outcome Measures group. RESULTS: Five FND-specific measures were identified-three clinician-rated and two patient-rated-but their measurement properties have not been rigorously evaluated. No single measure was identified for use across the range of FND symptoms in adults. Across randomised controlled trials (k=40) and observational treatment studies (k=40), outcome measures most often assessed core FND symptom change. Other domains measured commonly were additional physical and psychological symptoms, life impact (ie, quality of life, disability and general functioning) and health economics/cost-utility (eg, healthcare resource use and quality-adjusted life years). CONCLUSIONS: There are few well-validated FND-specific outcome measures. Thus, at present, we recommend that existing outcome measures, known to be reliable, valid and responsive in FND or closely related populations, are used to capture key outcome domains. Increased consistency in outcome measurement will facilitate comparison of treatment effects across FND symptom types and treatment modalities. Future work needs to more rigorously validate outcome measures used in this population

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability

Functional gait disorders: A sign-based approach

Contains fulltext : 220783.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)Functional gait disorders are common in clinical practice. They are also usually disabling for affected individuals. The diagnosis is challenging because no single walking pattern is pathognomonic for a functional gait disorder. Establishing a diagnosis is based not primarily on excluding organic gait disorders but instead predominantly on recognizing positive clinical features of functional gait disorders, such as an antalgic, a buckling, or a waddling gait. However, these features can resemble and overlap with organic gait disorders. It is therefore necessary to also look for inconsistency (variations in clinical presentation that cannot be reconciled with an organic lesion) and incongruity (combination of symptoms and signs that is not seen with organic lesions). Yet, these features also have potential pitfalls as inconsistency can occur in patients with dystonic gait or those with freezing of gait. Similarly, patients with dystonia or chorea can present with bizarre gait patterns that may falsely be interpreted as incongruity. A further complicating factor is that functional and organic gait disorders may coexist within the same patient. To improve the diagnostic process, we present a sign-based approach-supported by videos-that incorporates the diverse clinical spectrum of functional gait disorders. We identify 7 groups of supportive gait signs that can signal the presence of functional gait disorders. For each group of signs, we highlight how specific clinical tests can bring out the inconsistencies and incongruencies that further point to a functional gait disorder