Neuroscience Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran; Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Division of Neurology, "Franz Tappeiner" Hospital, Merano, Italy; Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Epilepsy Behav. 2020 Mar;104(Pt A):106895. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106895. Epub 2020 Jan 24.
The purpose of the study was to review the literature on the terminologies for psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) and make a proposal on the terminology of this condition. This proposal reflects the authors' own opinions.
We systematically searched MEDLINE (accessed from PubMed) and EMBASE from inception to October 10, 2019 for articles written in English with a main focus on PNES (with or without discussion of other functional neurological disorders) and which either proposed or discussed the accuracy or appropriateness of PNES terminologies.
The search strategy reported above yielded 757 articles; 30 articles were eventually included, which were generally of low quality. "Functional seizures" (FS) appeared to be an acceptable terminology to name this condition from the perspective of patients. In addition, FS is a term that is relatively popular with clinicians.
From the available evidence, FS meets more of the criteria proposed for an acceptable label than other popular terms in the field. While the term FS is neutral with regard to etiology and pathology (particularly regarding whether psychological or not), other terms such as "dissociative", "conversion", or "psychogenic" seizures are not. In addition, FS can potentially facilitate multidisciplinary (physical and psychological) management more than other terms. Adopting a universally accepted terminology to describe this disorder could standardize our approach to the illness and facilitate communication between healthcare professionals, patients, their families, carers, and the wider public.
本研究旨在回顾关于精神性非癫痫发作（PNES）术语的文献，并就该病症的术语提出建议。本建议反映了作者的个人观点。
我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE（从 PubMed 访问）和 EMBASE，从建库到 2019 年 10 月 10 日，检索到的文章均为英文，主要关注 PNES（无论是否讨论其他功能性神经障碍），且提出或讨论了 PNES 术语的准确性或适当性。
上述检索策略共产生 757 篇文章，最终纳入 30 篇文章，这些文章普遍质量较低。从患者的角度来看，“功能性发作”（FS）似乎是一个可以接受的命名该病症的术语。此外，FS 是一个相对受临床医生欢迎的术语。
根据现有证据，FS 比该领域其他流行术语更符合可接受标签的标准。虽然 FS 术语对病因和病理（特别是心理因素）持中立态度，但其他术语如“分离性”、“转换性”或“精神性”发作则不然。此外，FS 可能比其他术语更有助于多学科（身体和心理）管理。采用普遍接受的术语来描述这种疾病可以使我们对这种疾病的治疗方法标准化，并促进医疗保健专业人员、患者、他们的家人、照顾者和更广泛的公众之间的沟通。
