Kirkwood Brian, Mark Victor W
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
NeuroRehabilitation. 2022;50(2):169-178. doi: 10.3233/NRE-228002.
Functional movement disorders (FMDs) are a common cause of disability. With an increasing research interest in FMD, including the emergence of intervention trials, it is crucial that research methodology be examined, and standardized protocols be developed.
To characterize the current inclusion criteria used to select patients for FMD research studies and review the consistency and appropriateness of these criteria.
We identified studies of potential biomarkers for FMD that were published over the last two decades and performed a qualitative analysis on the finally included studies.
We identified 79 articles and found inconsistent inclusion criteria. The Fahn-Williams and DSM-IV criteria were the most commonly applied, but neither accounted for the majority (Fahn-Williams 46%, DSM-IV 32% of the total). The selection of the inclusion criteria depended in part on the phenotype of FMD under investigation. We also identified inclusion methodologies that were not appropriate, such as the inclusion of low-certainty diagnoses and diagnosing by excluding specific biomarkers rather than including patients based on clinical characteristics that commonly are thought to suggest FMD.
Significant variability exists with the inclusion criteria for FMD research studies. This variability could limit reproducibility and the appropriate aggregation of data for meta-analysis. Advancing FMD rehabilitation research will need standardized inclusion criteria. We make some suggestions.
功能性运动障碍(FMDs)是导致残疾的常见原因。随着对FMD研究兴趣的增加,包括干预试验的出现,审视研究方法并制定标准化方案至关重要。
描述目前用于选择FMD研究患者的纳入标准,并审查这些标准的一致性和适当性。
我们检索了过去二十年发表的关于FMD潜在生物标志物的研究,并对最终纳入的研究进行了定性分析。
我们识别出79篇文章,发现纳入标准不一致。法恩-威廉姆斯标准和《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)标准应用最为广泛,但两者均未占多数(法恩-威廉姆斯标准占总数的46%,DSM-IV标准占32%)。纳入标准的选择部分取决于所研究的FMD表型。我们还发现了不合适的纳入方法,例如纳入低确定性诊断以及通过排除特定生物标志物而非基于通常被认为提示FMD的临床特征纳入患者来进行诊断。
FMD研究的纳入标准存在显著差异。这种差异可能会限制可重复性以及荟萃分析数据的适当汇总。推进FMD康复研究需要标准化的纳入标准。我们提出了一些建议。