Functional neurological disorder (FND) is a common and often disabling condition. Without appropriate treatment, long–term outcomes are generally poor, with persistently reduced quality of life and ongoing symptom burden. Effective treatment is therefore essential. FND is understood as a disorder involving abnormalities within and between brain networks, influenced by biological, psychological and social factors. This multifactorial conceptualization underpins the use of several therapeutic approaches - including psychological treatment, physiotherapy and other paramedical interventions - that aim to restore movement and sensory functions, reduce symptom-related distress, and improve daily functioning. Although the evidence base is still developing, an increasing number of trials and systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of these interventions. The available evidence, together with international expert consensus and clinical experience, is summarized in this module.

PICO 1 – Paramedical treatment for FND

1. Physical complaints

2. Functioning

3. Psychological complaints

3.1 Anxiety

3.2 Depressive symptoms

4. Fatigue

5. Pain

6. Quality of life

7. Patient satisfaction

8. Complications

PICO 2 – Psychological treatment for FND

1. Physical complaints

2. Functioning

3. Psychological complaints

3.1 Anxiety

3.1 Depressive symptoms

4. Fatigue

5. Pain

6. Quality of life

7. Patient satisfaction

8. Complications

Results

PICO 1 – Paramedical treatment for FND

1. Physical complaints

One study included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure physical complaints, defined as reduction in physical signs (Nielsen, 2017). Additionally, Nielsen (2024) reported on the outcome measure physical complaints, assessed by the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) (higher scores on the SF indicate fewer physical complaints). 

Data was converted before pooling the data. The pooled data show mean difference of -4.91 (95%CI -14.00 to 4.18) in favor of paramedical interventions (Figure 1). This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

Figure 1: The effect of paramedical interventions on physical complaints in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

Nielsen (2024) also assessed the outcome measure physical complaints, i.e. functional neurological symptoms, by the clinical global impression of improvement (CGI-I) scale. The authors reported on the number of participants who rated their symptoms as ‘’much improved’’, twelve months post randomization. In total 26% (36/138) of participants in the specialist physiotherapy group rated their symptoms as ‘’much improved’’ compared to 14% (14/102) of participants in the treatment as usual group. Risk ratio is 1.90 (95%CI 1.08 to 3.33) in favor of specialist physiotherapy. This difference is considered clinically relevant.

2. Functioning

Two studies included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure functioning (Jordbru, 2014; Nielsen, 2017). In addition, Nielsen (2024) reported on functioning. Nielsen (2024) defined the outcome measure as social functioning, assessed by the SF-36.

Data of Nielsen (2024) and Jordbru (2014) was converted before pooling the data. The pooled data show a SMD of -0.63 (95%CI -1.36 to 0.11) in favor of paramedical interventions (Figure 2). This difference is considered clinically relevant. SMD was used because different instruments were used to assess functioning.

Figure 2: The effect of paramedical interventions on functioning in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

3. Psychological complaints

3.1 Anxiety

One study included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure anxiety (Nielsen, 2017). Nielsen (2024) also reported on anxiety, assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depressive symptoms Scale (HADS). Higher scores indicate more severe anxiety.

The pooled data show a mean difference of 0.33 (95%CI -0.82 to 1.49) in favor of waitlist or usual care (Figure 3). This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

Figure 3: The effect of paramedical interventions on anxiety in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

3.2 Depressive symptoms

One study included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure depressive symptoms (Nielsen, 2017). Nielsen (2024) also reported on depressive symptoms, assessed by the HADS. Higher scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms.

The pooled data show a mean difference of -1.29 (95%CI -5.04 to 2.47) in favor of paramedical interventions (Figure 4). This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

Figure 4: The effect of paramedical interventions on depressive symptoms in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

4. Fatigue

One study reported on the outcome measure fatigue (Nielsen, 2024). The outcome measure was defined as the number of participants with no, slight or moderate and severe or extreme fatigue, twelve months after randomization. The authors reported that 49% (67/136) of participants in the specialist physiotherapy group had no, slight or moderate fatigue, and 49% (48/97) of participants in the treatment as usual group. In addition, 51% (69/136) of participants in the specialist physiotherapy group reported to have severe or extreme fatigue, compared to 50% (53/106) of participants in the treatment as usual group. Risk ratio is 1.01 (95%CI 0.79 to 1.31) in favor of treatment as usual. This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

5. Pain

Nielsen (2024) reported on the outcome measure pain, assessed by the Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) domain bodily pain, twelve months after randomization. SF36 subdomain scores range from 0 to 100, with a maximum score of 100 indicating optimal health. The authors reported a mean (SD) SF-36 bodily pain score of 35.4 (26.4) for the specialist physiotherapy group (n=138) and 37.1 (25.6) for the treatment as usual group (n=103). Mean difference is 1.70 (95%CI -8.32 to 4.92) in favor of treatment as usual. This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

6. Quality of life

One study included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure quality of life (Jordbru, 2014). This was assessed by self-report using SF-12, which is a down-sized version of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). It described that the model showed significant treatment effects, but the carry-over effect was significant only for SF-12 physical.

7. Patient satisfaction

None of the studies reported on the outcome measure patient satisfaction.

8. Complications

The outcome measure complications was reported by one study. 

Nielsen (2024) reported on the number of participants with at least one adverse event. Adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence, regardless of causal relationship with treatment. The authors reported at least one adverse event in 29% (41/141) of participants in the specialist physiotherapy group, and in 25% (26/106) of participants in the treatment as usual group. Risk ratio is 1.19 (95%CI 0.78 to 1.81) in favor of treatment as usual. This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

PICO 2 – Psychological treatment for FND

1. Physical complaints

Six studies included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure physical complaints, defined as reduction in physical signs (Aamir, 2012; Goldstein, 2010; Hubschmid, 2015; Khattak, 2006; LaFrance, 2014; Moene, 2003). Additionally, Goldstein (2020, 2022) reported on the outcome measure physical complaints, assessed by the SF-12v2 (higher scores on the SF indicate fewer physical complaints). 

Data of Goldstein (2020, 2022) and Moene (2003) was converted before pooling the data. The pooled data show a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.09 (95%CI -1.76 to -0.42) in favor of psychological interventions (Figure 1). This difference is considered clinically relevant. SMD was used because different instruments at different timepoints were used to assess physical complaints.

Figure 1: The effect of psychological interventions on physical complaints in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

Data of two studies could not be pooled due to the variability in reporting of the outcome measure (LaFrance, 2014; Hubschmid, 2015). LaFrance (2014) reported on the percentage of participants with seizure freedom. 33.3% (3/9) of participants in the CBT-informed psychotherapy treatment group had seizure freedom compared to 14.3% (1/7) of participants in the treatment as usual group. Risk ratio is 2.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 17.88) in favor of CBT-informed psychotherapy. This difference is considered clinically relevant.

Hubschmid (2015) reported on the percentage of participants with conversion symptoms, as assessed by the Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire (SDQ-20). The authors reported conversion symptoms in 0% (0/9) of participants in the group that received joint neurological and psychiatric consultation followed by a psychotherapeutic intervention compared to 40% (4/10) of participants in the standard care group. Risk ratio is 0.12 (95%CI 0.01 to 2.00) in favor of the intervention. This difference is considered clinically relevant.

2. Functioning

Two studies included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure functioning (Goldstein, 2010; LaFrance, 2014). In addition, Goldstein (2020, 2022) reported on functioning. Goldstein (2020, 2022) defined the outcome measure as psychosocial functioning, assessed by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS).

The pooled data show a SMD of -0.35 (95%CI -0.68 to -0.01) in favor of psychological interventions (Figure 2). This difference is considered not clinically relevant. SMD was used because different instruments at different timepoints were used to assess physical complaints.

Figure 2: The effect of psychological interventions on functioning in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

3. Psychological complaints

3.1 Anxiety

Four studies included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure anxiety (Aamir, 2012; Goldstein, 2010; Khattak, 2006; LaFrance, 2014). Goldstein (2020, 2022) also reported on anxiety, assessed by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), respectively. Higher scores indicate more severe anxiety.

Data of LaFrance (2014) was converted before pooling the data. The pooled data show a SMD of -0.68 (95%CI -1.13 to -0.22) in favor of psychological interventions (Figure 3). This difference is considered clinically relevant. SMD was used because different instruments at different timepoints were used to assess anxiety.

Figure 3: The effect of psychological interventions on anxiety in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

3.2 Depressive symptoms

Five studies included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure psychological complaints (Aamir, 2012; Goldstein, 2010; Hubschmid, 2015; Khattak, 2006; LaFrance, 2014). Goldstein (2020, 2022) also reported on depressive symptoms, assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Higher scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms.

Data of LaFrance (2014) was converted before pooling the data. The pooled data show a SMD of -0.56 (95%CI -0.97 to -0.16) in favor of psychological interventions (Figure 4). This difference is considered clinically relevant. SMD was used because different instruments at different timepoints were used to assess physical complaints.

Figure 4: The effect of psychological interventions on depressive symptoms in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

Data of Hubschmid (2015) could not be pooled due to the variability in reporting of the outcome measure. The authors reported on the percentage of participants with depressive symptoms, assessed by the Beck Depressive symptoms Inventory-II (BDI-II). Higher scores on the BDI-II indicate more severe depressive symptoms. 1 out of 7 participants (14.3%) in the psychotherapeutic intervention group were reported to have a depressive symptoms, compared to 1 out of 9 participants (11.1%) in the standard care group. Risk ratio is 1.29 (95%CI 0.10 to 17.14) in favor of standard care. This difference is considered clinically relevant.

4. Fatigue

None of the studies reported on the outcome measure fatigue.

5. Pain

None of the studies reported on the outcome measure pain.

6. Quality of life

Two studies included in Ganslev (2020) reported on the outcome measure quality of life (Hubschmid, 2015; LaFrance, 2014). Additionally, Goldstein (2020, 2022) reported on the outcome measure quality of life, assessed by the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS). Higher scores indicate higher quality of life.

Data of Goldstein (2020, 2022) was converted before pooling the data. The pooled data show a SMD of -0.58 (95%CI -1.79 to 0.63) in favor of psychological interventions (Figure 5). This difference is considered clinically relevant. SMD was used because different instruments at different timepoints were used to assess physical complaints.

Figure 5: The effect of psychological interventions on quality of life in participants with functional neurological disorder.

Z: p-value of the pooled effect; df: degrees of freedom; I2: statistic heterogeneity; CI: confidence interval.

7. Patient satisfaction

One study reported on the outcome measure patient satisfaction (Goldstein 2020, 2022).

Goldstein (2020, 2022) reported a satisfaction score which was measured on a 7-point scale (0=very dissatisfied; 6=very satisfied), six and twelve months after randomization.

• At six months post randomization, the authors reported a mean (SD) satisfaction score of 5.1 (1.3) for the CBT group (n=135), and 3.8 (2.0) for the standard medical care group (n=140). Mean difference is 1.30 (95%CI 0.90 to 1.70) in favor of CBT. This difference is considered clinically relevant.
• At twelve months post randomization, a mean (SD) satisfaction score of 5.2 (1.4) for the CBT group (n=148), and 4.2 (2.0) for the standard medical care group (n=145). Mean difference is 1.00 (95%CI 0.60 to 1.40) in favor of CBT. This difference is considered clinically relevant.

8. Complications

The outcome measure complications was reported by one study (Goldstein, 2020). 

Goldstein (2020) reported on the number of participants with serious adverse events. Serious adverse events were defined as any adverse event that resulted in death; was life-threatening; required hospital admission or prolongation of existing hospital stay; resulted in a new persistent or new significant disability or incapacity; was any other important medical condition that might jeopardize the participant and might require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed; or any new episode of deliberate self-harm. The authors reported serious adverse events in 13% (25/186) of participants in the CBT group, and in 13% (24/182) of participants in the standard medical care group. Psychological events (e.g., deteriorations in mood) were the most common type of adverse event in the CBT group, and musculoskeletal events (e.g., reports of injuries from dissociative seizures) were the most common type of adverse event in the standard medical care group. Risk ratio is 1.02 (95%CI 0.61 to 1.72) in favor of standard medical care. This difference is considered not clinically relevant.

Level of evidence of the literature

PICO 1 – Paramedical treatment for FND 

1. Physical complaints

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure physical complaints was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding, high risk of attrition bias and detection bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

2. Functioning

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure functioning was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (missing information on multiple domains, lack of blinding, high risk of attrition bias and detection bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

3. Psychological complaints

3.1 Anxiety

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure anxiety was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding, high risk of attrition bias and detection bias) (risk of bias: -2), and wide confidence intervals of individual studies (imprecision: -1).

3.2 Depressive symptoms

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure depressive symptoms was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding, high risk of attrition bias and detection bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

4. Fatigue

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure fatigue was downgraded by four levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding, high risk of detection bias and attrition bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with both borders of clinical relevance (imprecision: -2).

5. Pain

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure pain was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding, high risk of detection bias and attrition bias)  (risk of bias: -2), and the low number of patients (imprecision: -1).

6. Quality of life

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure quality of life could not be assessed.

7. Patient satisfaction

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure patient satisfaction could not be assessed.

8. Complications

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure complications was downgraded by four levels to low because of study limitations (lack of blinding) (risk of bias: -1), and overlap of confidence intervals with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

PICO 2 – Psychological treatment for FND

 1. Physical complaints

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure physical complaints was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (missing information on multiple domains, lack of blinding, high risk of attrition bias, detection bias, and reporting bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

2. Functioning

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure functioning was downgraded by three levels to low because of study limitations (lack of blinding) (risk of bias: -1), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

3. Psychological complaints

3.1 Anxiety

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure anxiety was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (missing information on multiple domains, lack of blinding, high risk of detection bias and reporting bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

3.2 Depressive symptoms

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure depressive symptoms was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (missing information on multiple domains, lack of blinding, high risk of detection bias and reporting bias) (risk of bias: -2), and overlap of confidence interval with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

4. Fatigue

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure fatigue could not be assessed.

5. Pain

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure pain could not be assessed.

6. Quality of life

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure quality of life was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding, high risk of detection bias) (risk of bias: -1), and overlap of confidence interval with both borders of clinical relevance (imprecision: -2).

7. Patient satisfaction

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure patient satisfaction was downgraded by two levels to low because of study limitations (lack of blinding) (risk of bias: -1), and overlap of confidence intervals with border of clinical relevance (imprecision: -1).

8. Complications

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure complications was downgraded by four levels to very low because of study limitations (lack of blinding) (risk of bias: -1), and overlap of confidence intervals with both borders of clinical relevance (imprecision: -2).

A systematic review of the literature was performed to answer the following question:

What are the benefits and risks of paramedical and psychological treatment when compared to waitlist or usual care among patients with functional neurological disorder (FND)?

Relevant outcome measures

The guideline development group considered physical complaints, psychological complaints, functioning, and quality of life as critical outcome measures for decision making, and fatigue, pain, patient satisfaction, and complications as important outcome measures for decision making.

A priori, the guideline panel did not define the outcome measures listed above but used the definitions used in the studies.

For all outcome measures, the working group defined a 25% difference for dichotomous outcomes (0.8 ≤ RR ≥ 1.25) and 0.5 SD for continuous outcomes as a minimal clinically (patient) important difference. If studies use different instruments to assess the same outcome measure, the standardized mean difference (SMD) is calculated. For SMDs, results were clinically relevant if they were smaller than -0.5 or larger than 0.5.

Search and select (Methods)

The databases Medline (via OVID), PsycINFO (via OVID), and Embase (via Embase.com) were searched with relevant search terms from 2010 until 2 July 2024. The detailed search strategy is available upon request. The systematic literature search resulted in 699 hits. Studies were selected based on the following criteria:

• Systematic review, RCTs or other comparative studies;
• Full-text English language publication;
• Studies according to the PICO.

In total, 27 studies were initially selected based on title and abstract screening. After reading the full text, 23 studies were excluded (see the table with reasons for exclusion under the tab ‘Evidence tabellen’) and four studies were selected for inclusion. 

1. Aybek S, Perez DL. Diagnosis and management of functional neurological disorder. BMJ. 2022 Jan 24;376:o64. doi: 10.1136/bmj.o64. PMID: 35074803.
2. Baker J, Barnett C, Cavalli L, Dietrich M, Dixon L, Duffy JR, Elias A, Fraser DE, Freeburn JL, Gregory C, McKenzie K, Miller N, Patterson J, Roth C, Roy N, Short J, Utianski R, van Mersbergen M, Vertigan A, Carson A, Stone J, McWhirter L. Management of functional communication, swallowing, cough and related disorders: consensus recommendations for speech and language therapy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;92(10):1112-1125. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2021-326767. Epub 2021 Jul 1. PMID: 34210802.
3. Barnett C, Armes J, Smith C. Speech, language and swallowing impairments in functional neurological disorder: a scoping review. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019 May;54(3):309-320. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12448. Epub 2018 Dec 27. PMID: 30592118.
4. Berk M, Parker G. The elephant on the couch: side-effects of psychotherapy. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009 Sep;43(9):787-94. doi: 10.1080/00048670903107559. PMID: 19670051.
5. Cabreira V, Alty J, Antic S, Araújo R, Aybek S, Ball HA, Baslet G, Bhome R, Coebergh J, Dubois B, Edwards M, Filipović SR, Frederiksen KS, Harbo T, Hayhow B, Howard R, Huntley J, Isaacs J, LaFrance WC Jr, Larner AJ, Di Lorenzo F, Main J, Mallam E, Marra C, Massano J, McGrath ER, McWhirter L, Moreira IP, Nobili F, Pennington C, Tábuas-Pereira M, Perez DL, Popkirov S, Rayment D, Rossor M, Russo M, Santana I, Schott J, Scott EP, Taipa R, Tinazzi M, Tomic S, Toniolo S, Tørring CW, Wilkinson T, Frostholm L, Stone J, Carson A. Perspectives on the diagnosis and management of functional cognitive disorder: An international Delphi study. Eur J Neurol. 2025 Jan;32(1):e16318. doi: 10.1111/ene.16318. Epub 2024 May 3. PMID: 38700361; PMCID: PMC11617961.
6. Cabreira V, Frostholm L, Stone J, Carson A. Feasibility trial of a self-help digital intervention for functional cognitive disorder. Brain Commun. 2025 Jun 19;7(4):fcaf248. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcaf248. PMID: 40641596; PMCID: PMC12241858.
7. Connors MH, Quinto L, Deeley Q, Halligan PW, Oakley DA, Kanaan RA. Hypnosis and suggestion as interventions for functional neurological disorder: A systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2024 Jan-Feb;86:92-102. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.12.006. Epub 2023 Dec 14. PMID: 38154334.
8. Connors MH, Quinto L, Deeley Q, Halligan PW, Oakley DA, Kanaan RA. Hypnosis and suggestion as interventions for functional neurological disorder: A systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2024 Jan-Feb;86:92-102. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.12.006. Epub 2023 Dec 14. PMID: 38154334
9. Cope SR, Smith JG, El-Leithy S, Vanzan S, Hogwood P, Golder D, Turner KJ, Crowley M, Billings J, Pick S, Pentland C, Edwards MJ. Randomised feasibility study evaluating eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy for functional neurological disorder (MODIFI). J Neurol. 2025 Jul 8;272(8):493. doi: 10.1007/s00415-025-13219-5. PMID: 40627223; PMCID: PMC12238153.
10. Ding JM, Kanaan RA. Conversion disorder: A systematic review of current terminology. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2017 Mar-Apr;45:51-55. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.12.009. Epub 2016 Dec 24. PMID: 28274339.
11. Duncan R, Razvi S, Mulhern S. Newly presenting psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: incidence, population characteristics, and early outcome from a prospective audit of a first seizure clinic. Epilepsy Behav. 2011 Feb;20(2):308-11. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2010.10.022. Epub 2010 Dec 30. PMID: 21195031.
12. Ertan, D., Aybek, S., LaFrance Jr, W. C., Kanemoto, K., Tarrada, A., Maillard, L., ... & Hingray, C. (2022). Functional (psychogenic non-epileptic/dissociative) seizures: why and how?. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 93(2), 144-157.
13. Jordbru AA, Smedstad LM, Klungsøyr O, Martinsen EW. Psychogenic gait disorder: a randomized controlled trial of physical rehabilitation with one-year follow-up. J Rehabil Med. 2014 Feb;46(2):181-7. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1246. PMID: 24248149.
14. Ganslev CA, Storebø OJ, Callesen HE, Ruddy R, Søgaard U. Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 17;7(7):CD005331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005331.pub3. PMID: 32681745; PMCID: PMC7388313.
15. Gasparini S, Beghi E, Ferlazzo E, Beghi M, Belcastro V, Biermann KP, Bottini G, Capovilla G, Cervellione RA, Cianci V, Coppola G, Cornaggia CM, De Fazio P, De Masi S, De Sarro G, Elia M, Erba G, Fusco L, Gambardella A, Gentile V, Giallonardo AT, Guerrini R, Ingravallo F, Iudice A, Labate A, Lucenteforte E, Magaudda A, Mumoli L, Papagno C, Pesce GB, Pucci E, Ricci P, Romeo A, Quintas R, Sueri C, Vitaliti G, Zoia R, Aguglia U. Management of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: a multidisciplinary approach. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Feb;26(2):205-e15. doi: 10.1111/ene.13818. Epub 2018 Nov 29. PMID: 30300463.
16. Gelauff JM, Rosmalen JGM, Carson A, Dijk JM, Ekkel M, Nielsen G, Stone J, Tijssen MAJ. Internet-based self-help randomized trial for motor functional neurologic disorder (SHIFT). Neurology. 2020 Sep 29;95(13):e1883-e1896. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010381. Epub 2020 Jul 20. PMID: 32690783.
17. Gelauff J, Stone J, Edwards M, Carson A. The prognosis of functional (psychogenic) motor symptoms: a systematic review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 Feb;85(2):220-6. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305321. Epub 2013 Sep 12. PMID: 24029543.
18. Goldstein LH, Robinson EJ, Mellers JDC, Stone J, Carson A, Reuber M, Medford N, McCrone P, Murray J, Richardson MP, Pilecka I, Eastwood C, Moore M, Mosweu I, Perdue I, Landau S, Chalder T; CODES study group. Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;7(6):491-505. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30128-0. Epub 2020 May 20. PMID: 32445688; PMCID: PMC7242906.
19. Goldstein LH, Robinson EJ, Chalder T, Reuber M, Medford N, Stone J, Carson A, Moore M, Landau S. Six-month outcomes of the CODES randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for dissociative seizures: A secondary analysis. Seizure. 2022 Mar;96:128-136. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.01.016. Epub 2022 Jan 25. PMID: 35228117; PMCID: PMC8970049.
20. Goldstein AN, Paredes-Echeverri S, Finkelstein SA, Guthrie AJ, Perez DL, Freeburn JL. Speech and language therapy: A treatment case series of 20 patients with functional speech disorder. NeuroRehabilitation. 2023;53(2):227-238. doi: 10.3233/NRE-220182. PMID: 37599546.
21. Goldstein LH, Stone J, Reuber M, Landau S, Robinson EJ, Carson A, Medford N, Chalder T. Reflections on the CODES trial for adults with dissociative seizures: what we found and considerations for future studies. BMJ Neurol Open. 2024 Jun 5;6(1):e000659. doi: 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000659. PMID: 38860230; PMCID: PMC11163627.
22. Hallett M, Aybek S, Dworetzky BA, McWhirter L, Staab JP, Stone J. Functional neurological disorder: new subtypes and shared mechanisms. Lancet Neurol. 2022 Jun;21(6):537-550. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00422-1. Epub 2022 Apr 14. Erratum in: Lancet Neurol. 2022 Jun;21(6):e6. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00179-X. PMID: 35430029; PMCID: PMC9107510.
23. Hunter RM, Nielsen G, Le Novere M, Marston L, Lee TC, Stone J, Goldstein LH, Carson A, Holt K, Marsden J, Nazareth I, Noble H, Reuber M, Strudwick AM, Santana Suarez B, Edwards MJ. Cost Utility of Specialist Physiotherapy for Functional Motor Disorder (Physio4FMD): Economic Analysis of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurol Clin Pract. 2025 Jun;15(3):e200465. doi: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200465. Epub 2025 Apr 1. PMID: 40190588; PMCID: PMC11970929.
24. Lagrand TJ, Jones M, Bernard A, Lehn AC. Health Care Utilization in Functional Neurologic Disorders: Impact of Explaining the Diagnosis of Functional Seizures on Health Care Costs. Neurol Clin Pract. 2023 Feb;13(1):e200111. doi: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200111. Epub 2023 Jan 11. PMID: 36865642; PMCID: PMC9973286.
25. Nielsen G, Stone J, Edwards MJ. Physiotherapy for functional (psychogenic) motor symptoms: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res. 2013 Aug;75(2):93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.05.006. Epub 2013 Jun 12. PMID: 23915764.
26. Nielsen G, Stone J, Matthews A, Brown M, Sparkes C, Farmer R, Masterton L, Duncan L, Winters A, Daniell L, Lumsden C, Carson A, David AS, Edwards M. Physiotherapy for functional motor disorders: a consensus recommendation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;86(10):1113-9. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-309255. Epub 2014 Nov 28. PMID: 25433033; PMCID: PMC4602268.
27. Nielsen G, Stone J, Lee TC, Goldstein LH, Marston L, Hunter RM, Carson A, Holt K, Marsden J, Le Novere M, Nazareth I, Noble H, Reuber M, Strudwick AM, Santana Suarez B, Edwards MJ; Physio4FMD study group. Specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder in England and Scotland (Physio4FMD): a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2024 Jul;23(7):675-686. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00135-2. Epub 2024 May 17. PMID: 38768621.
28. Perez DL, Aybek S, Popkirov S, Kozlowska K, Stephen CD, Anderson J, Shura R, Ducharme S, Carson A, Hallett M, Nicholson TR, Stone J, LaFrance WC Jr, Voon V; (On behalf of the American Neuropsychiatric Association Committee for Research. A Review and Expert Opinion on the Neuropsychiatric Assessment of Motor Functional Neurological Disorders. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021 Winter;33(1):14-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19120357. Epub 2020 Aug 11. PMID: 32778007.
29. Poole N, Cope S, Vanzan S, Duffus A, Williams T, Mantovani N, Smith JG, Barrett B, Scicluna M, Beardmore S, Edwards MJ, Howard R. Randomised controlled feasibility trial of online group acceptance and commitment therapy for functional cognitive disorder. BJPsych Open. 2025 May 2;11(3):e91. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2025.33. PMID: 40314156; PMCID: PMC12089801.
30. Rioux M, Mamman R, Byworth MT, Panenka WJ, Howard AK, Perez DL, Schmidt J, Courchesne C, LeMoult J, Heran MK, Silverberg ND. Pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of cognitive-behavioural therapy for functional cognitive disorder after concussion. BMJ Neurol Open. 2024 Oct 11;6(2):e000666. doi: 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000666. PMID: 39410977; PMCID: PMC11474702.
31. Staton A, Dawson D, Merdian H, Tickle A, Walker T. Functional neurological disorder: A qualitative study exploring individuals' experiences of psychological services. Psychol Psychother. 2024 Mar;97(1):138-156. doi: 10.1111/papt.12504. Epub 2023 Oct 6. PMID: 37800641.
32. Stone J, Carson A, Hallett M. Explanation as treatment for functional neurologic disorders. Handb Clin Neurol. 2016;139:543-553. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801772-2.00044-8. PMID: 27719870.
33. Tibben MI, van Opdorp A, Bialek W, Schaap J, Tijssen MAJ, Merkx MJM. Efficacy of Hypnosis and Catalepsy Induction in Functional Neurological Disorders. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2024 Feb;11(2):129-135. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.13934. Epub 2023 Dec 18. PMID: 38386488; PMCID: PMC10883405.
34. Watson M, Woodward J, Strom LA. The Financial Burden of Functional Neurological Disorders. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2023 Oct;23(10):637-643. doi: 10.1007/s11910-023-01298-8. Epub 2023 Sep 11. PMID: 37695443.