Talk:Functional neurologic disorder

Earlier text

Sorry the page is a bit of a mess, basically needs to be formatted properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinist (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is now aetiologically out of date and needs the references to the organic cause of "functional" symptoms refined. Of particular note is work on phantom limb sydrome and the underlying organic stimulus behind these deficits (see hurst & stone)

a merge would not reflect the current debate about symptoms for which no diagnosis can currently be offered. A good analogy would be- prior to 1984 Hughes Syndrome must have been "functional". The percentage of sufferers diagnosed as hysterical must be vast. (Hughes mimics Multiple Sclerosis without lesions on scan, hence easy misdiagnosis as hysterical)

Simon 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)alpinist

Simon - I have just re-read the Wikipedia pages on "Functional weakness" and "Functional Neurological Deficit". Whilst they reflect your views they are not balanced in their presentation. I suggest that they are both altered to be signposts to the conversion disorder article but highlighting that there are different ways of looking at and describing the problem. Whilst some doctors may use 'functional' as code, many do not and this approach should be reflected. The issue of misdiagnosis is important but should not be allowed to dominate. There seems little point in me trying to do with this without your agreement since you have more time to 'undo' any changes I might make

--Boris69 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term 'Functional' is useful in a medical context as it cues diagnosis towards something which, although not physical, in origin, it is still real. The term is increasingly accepted to mean this by practising medical doctors who encounter these patients only rarely.

27.252.241.123 (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Common Myths—sources?

The Common Myths subsection has no citations. To the best of my knowledge (and I am a professional in this area), the last two points may not be accurate, or at least not accurate enough to be called "common myths."

It is also oddly formatted compared to the rest of the article.

I propose:

1. Reformatting to match the rest of the article
2. Eliminating the last two myths, or finding sufficient sources to support them
3. Alternatively, removing the subsection and folding some of its points into the article.

--adoarns (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia Article

My name is Ingrid and I am a neurology registrar doing research with Dr Jon Stone and Dr Alan Carson in their Edinburgh research group. I read the Wikipedia page just after it was created and thought that it was great but that there was some new research that might be helpful to include and that some of the sections would benefit from a bit more detail. I used the initial wiki page to create a longer article and got consensus from our research group. The page writing and re-drafting took a few weeks. Since then the article has changed quite a bit with lots more detail and lots of interesting history included.

The intention of our group with this article was to create a brief but clear summary of functional neurological disorders based upon the original. It’s the kind of thing we hope that patients who are diagnosed with FND will be able to read and get valuable information from. We’d also like doctors, physiotherapists, psychologists and other health care professionals to be able to get information and references which they can pass on to their patients from the article. For that reason, I’ve changed the lay out around a bit so that the signs and symptoms and current treatment are before the history section. I wonder if maybe we should have a separate history page as it’s a whole article in and of itself? I hope this explains why the page has been changed so much by me and I hope that you enjoy reading the new version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridHoeritzauer (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Title

Before I change the current title (or rather, request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial technical requests), I'd like to post something here. Per the WP:Manual of Style, titles should follow sentence case and sources do often use sentence case in common use (i.e., outside of headings and titles). If I am mistaken (which is more than possible), please stop me now. Thanks, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That resolved itself a while back, but the casing is still mismatched. As I've said here, I've not found an explicit usage of the term "functional neurological symptom disorder" after going through all of the open access/etc. refs provided, and only vaguely similar terms (almost all lowercase outside of titles and first incidences, which are occasionally capitalized). (As for terms with acronyms such as CBT, I've been going off of the advice in these [1] threads [2] and the links/style guides referenced therein and changing them to lowercase when spelled out.) If anyone does have an example of the use of the term with/without caps and could either change the casing in this article or file a request to change the casing in the title, it would be greatly appreciated. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

I am not a neurologist or medical practitioner, but even from a layman's point of view it is immediately obvious that the current title of this page (Functional neurological symptom disorder) differs from the first emboldened words referring to the title (Functional neurological disorder (FND)); therefore I propose that either the introduction be reworded to make "Functional neurological symptom disorder" the first emboldened word, or that the title of this page be changed to "Functional neurological disorder". As I mentioned previously, I have no specialist knowledge in the field of neurology, so I am unsure as to the correct course of action to take, but I feel that something should be done regarding this discrepancy.

114.75.111.49 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the article seems to use FNsD more than FND, I've changed the lede to reflect that. I am also a layperson, so if anyone objects, they are more than welcome to change it to the proper/more common title. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of References

Entire sections of this page are lacking in references (including the "Signs and Symptoms" and "Diagnostic Criteria" sections), and appear to have been created as a result of one person's opinion.
Also, the reference for the statement "Currently, doctors believe that misdiagnosis rates for FND are low, with some research suggesting that only 2% of patients are misdiagnosed after a follow up 12.5 years later" does not qualify the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.39.199 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I added a tag for that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Under the History section there is a sentence, "Although the term "conversion disorder" has been in existence for many years, another term was still being used in the 20th century." From context within following paragraphs, I suspect that other term was "hysteria" -- but it should be made specific. -VictoriaWordNerd —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Several years later this still hasn’t been fixed unfortunately. “Hysteria” does appear further down in the article but the section you’re referring to remains very strangely worded, like it previously contained a reference to hysteria (or some other term, but I agree, context suggests “hysteria” is most likely) which was later removed.

Can anyone with knowledge of relevant references fix this paragraph? It looks like a citation is also needed for the bit comparing the diagnostic criteria to hysteria. I lack the relevant expertise to know where best to look something like this up or I’d do it myself. Catfrost (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I came here to investigate what looks like some edit warring and found that there are two potential copyright violations on this report. The specific sections are tagged and there is quite a bit of info there about resolving the issue.

The use of copyright content can result in the deletion of the article, so it would good to get this resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Title, again

I return to a matter discussed above under "Untitled" on 18 August 2016.

The second paragraph of this article's lead includes the sentence: "Subsets of functional neurological disorders include functional neurological symptom disorder (FNsD), conversion disorder, and psychogenic movement disorder/non-epileptic seizures." It seems incongruous to title an article after a subset ("functional neurological symptom disorder") of the principal concept addressed in the article, which is – as also indicated by the opening of the lead – "functional neurological disorder".

I therefore propose that the article be moved to the most comprehensive, overarching concept: "functional neurological disorder". Does anyone oppose the move?

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There being no voice in opposition, the article is moved to "functional neurologic disorder".

Nihil novi (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

== Should be combined with con

Vaccines and FND

I was recently told by my neurologist, vaccines are a contributing factor or FND. Is there any studies, particularly more recent vaccines. 2601:192:4E00:3B90:397C:F249:E059:5BED (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The causality is reversed - FND is attributed to vaccines without plausible or even theoretical biological process. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.4997/jrcpe.2021.403 CFCF (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Outdated information

Throughout this article there is outdated information. See https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/fnd/ for current medical information. “ Older ideas that FND is “all psychological” and therefore always associated with stress or past trauma, and that the diagnosis is made only when someone has normal tests, have changed since the mid-2000s. The new understanding, including modern neuroscientific studies, has shown that FND is not a diagnosis of exclusion. It has specific clinical features of its own and is a disorder of the nervous system functioning in which many perspectives are necessary. These vary a lot from person to person. In some people, psychological factors are important; in others, they are not.”

please clean up this article as it is causing misunderstandings for people whom actually have functional nerve disorder 72.134.160.60 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 May 2024 and 12 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Priyaraymond (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rashanmarcus, Mdbutler7, Sld99, Jpow05, Tltuggle18.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

History

I find the first paragraph in the History section really confusing.

"From the 18th century, there was a move from the idea of FND being caused by the nervous system. This led to an understanding that it could affect both sexes."

This is unexplained in situ - though I can guess the historical explanation: "Weak females suffer from nervous troubles, such as hysteria. Strong males don't", would be my guess; but it is just a guess.

"Jean Martin Charcot argued that, what would be later called FND, was caused by "a hereditary degeneration of the nervous system, namely a neurological disorder"."

To me, this looks to contradict the very first sentence of the paragraph! CatNip48 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)