4.5 Article

Symptom severity in patients with functional motor symptoms: Patient's perception and doctor's clinical assessment

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 529-532

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.02.022

关键词

Functional motor symptoms; Conversion disorders; Awareness; Perception; Video

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Beliefs and expectations about symptoms and an abnormal direction of attention towards the body have been proposed as important mechanistic factors in the pathophysiology of functional motor symptoms (FMS). We therefore aimed to evaluate patients' awareness/perception of the presence and severity of their own symptoms before and while watching themselves in a video and to compare this with doctors' assessment of the presence and severity of FMS, based on video evaluation. Methods: We evaluated 16 patients affected by FMS. Patients were invited to give a subjective evaluation of their symptoms. Afterwards, patients were invited to watch a video of themselves and to judge the presence of symptoms in the different body parts and, if so, to rate the severity. Patients' videos were also assessed by a rater with expertise in FMS. Results: Patients judged their symptoms to be more severe on subjective evaluation than when viewing a video of themselves (p = 0.002; t = 3.656). Subjective evaluation of symptom severity by patients was higher than that of raters viewing a video of the patient (p < 0.001, t = 4.860), but there was only a trend towards a difference between video ratings of severity by patients and independent raters (p = 0.017, t = 2.962 with p set at 0.016 according to Bonferroni correction). Conclusions: Our study shows that patients with FMS tend to overestimate the severity of their symptoms compared independent rating. However, when viewing a video of themselves they rated their symptoms as less severe and closer to those of independent raters. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据