Is Functional Neurological Disorder Misdiagnosed? Accuracy and Follow-Up

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Somatic Symptom & Functional Disorders · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Functional neurological disorder (FND) can be misdiagnosed, as can other neurological conditions. Published follow-up studies show that a diagnosis made through appropriate neurological evaluation is generally stable. The most widely cited systematic review found an average subsequent misdiagnosis rate of approximately 4% in studies from the 1970s onward. A later prospective study reported an unexpected, plausible new disease explanation for original symptoms in 4 of 1,030 people (0.4%), although that broader group was not exclusively diagnosed with FND. These estimates describe different populations and methods and should never be combined into a single universal personal risk. Stone et al., 2005; Stone et al., 2009.

A reliable diagnosis depends on positive clinical features of FND, a neurological examination tailored to the symptoms, and investigation of alternative or coexisting conditions where indicated. An existing FND diagnosis remains open to review when new symptoms, objective neurological findings, changes in the clinical course, or unexplained safety concerns appear. FND and another neurological disease can coexist. Aybek and Perez, 2022; Finkelstein and Popkirov, 2023.

Ukrainian Psychological Hub | October 12, 2026 | Editorial Policy

What does FND misdiagnosis actually mean?

Functional neurological disorder is a clinical diagnosis involving neurological symptoms—such as weakness, tremor, seizure-like episodes, altered sensation, gait problems, or speech changes—with positive features demonstrating an altered pattern of nervous system functioning. The clinician identifies features of inconsistency or incompatibility with recognized neurological disease using examination findings or characteristic event features appropriate to the presentation. FND symptoms are real and may be disabling. Neither psychological stress nor a normal scan, taken alone, establishes the diagnosis. Aybek and Perez, 2022.

A true diagnostic error occurs when the initial diagnosis inadequately accounted for findings already present and a different disorder would better have explained those original symptoms. A diagnostic revision is a broader event: it includes refinement after new evidence, a new medical disease developing later, the discovery of an additional disorder, or disagreement over labels. These events have different clinical meanings. Counting every subsequent new neurological diagnosis as proof that the original FND diagnosis was wrong exaggerates misdiagnosis rates. Stone et al., 2009; Gelauff et al., 2019.

For example, someone may have positive findings of functional limb weakness and later develop a stroke with a separate onset and localization. That stroke requires immediate evaluation, but its later occurrence does not necessarily invalidate the original functional diagnosis. Someone may also have both FND and multiple sclerosis, with different symptoms attributable to each. These distinctions are central to responsible follow-up. Walzl, Solomon, and Stone, 2022.

What is the reported FND misdiagnosis rate?

The classic systematic review: approximately 4% after 1970

In a landmark 2005 BMJ systematic review, Stone and colleagues evaluated 27 studies involving 1,466 adults with motor or sensory symptoms previously regarded as conversion symptoms or unexplained by recognized disease. Median follow-up was five years. The review estimated mean diagnostic error rates around 4% for studies published in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. It reported much higher figures in older series, alongside substantial limitations in early study design and case ascertainment. Its authors cautioned against attributing the decline simply to the availability of modern scans: study quality and diagnostic methodology mattered. Stone et al., 2005.

This is a historical synthesis of heterogeneous studies, not a prospective probability calculator for every current subtype of FND. Older papers used terms such as conversion disorder and hysteria; diagnostic criteria, specialist expertise, patient selection, and methods of detecting missed disease varied widely. Some studies captured primarily motor or sensory complaints rather than the full modern FND spectrum, including functional seizures. The roughly 4% estimate is an informative benchmark that must be read with these methodological limits.

The Scottish prospective cohort: 4 of 1,030, or 0.4%

In a large neurology-outpatient study, 1,144 of 3,781 referred patients were rated as having symptoms only somewhat or not at all explained by recognized neurological disease. Follow-up information was available for 1,030. At approximately 18 months, four people had acquired an unexpected neurological disease diagnosis plausibly explaining their original complaints, yielding 0.4% of the followed group. Stone et al., 2009.

The denominator is particularly important. That group included headache disorders, symptoms partly related to an established neurological illness, and functional motor, sensory, or seizure-like symptoms. It was not a cohort consisting exclusively of people with rigorously established FND. Therefore, “FND is misdiagnosed in only 0.4% of cases” is an inaccurate translation of the study. The result instead supports the more specific conclusion that unexpected disease explanations for previously unexplained symptoms were uncommon during the measured follow-up in that service.

The 14-year functional limb weakness study: about 1%

Gelauff and colleagues followed a prospectively recruited group of patients with functional limb weakness for an average of 14 years. Information sufficient to assess diagnostic change was available for 89 patients. One was considered a misdiagnosis in hindsight, involving multiple sclerosis; importantly, that person also had coexisting functional symptoms. The investigators separately documented new neurological diseases that developed after the original assessment and did not better explain the initial weakness. Gelauff et al., 2019.

This study provides unusually long observation of a defined motor presentation, and it demonstrates why the distinction between initial error and subsequently developing disease matters. The findings cannot be assumed to apply at the same rate to every functional symptom subtype, emergency presentation, pediatric case, or clinical service. The cohort was relatively small, and follow-up completeness is relevant when interpreting any percentage.

Errors occur in both diagnostic directions

A related Scottish prospective study began with 2,637 people diagnosed with neurological diseases thought to explain their symptoms. Among 2,378 with valid follow-up, 10 (0.4%) ultimately received a functional diagnosis that better accounted for their original symptoms; 38 (1.6%) received a different neurological disease diagnosis. Thus clinicians can initially attribute functional symptoms to structural neurological illness as well as mistake neurological illness for FND. Walzl, Carson, and Stone, 2019.

The implications extend beyond statistics: a person mistakenly labeled with a neurological disease may receive unnecessary treatment or miss targeted FND rehabilitation, while a person whose neurological illness is mistakenly labeled functional may face delayed disease-specific treatment. Both are reasons to insist on demonstrable clinical findings, transparent explanations, and appropriate reassessment.

What the 2026 systematic review adds

A 2026 systematic review by Marín-Medina and colleagues examined reported cases of movement disorders initially labeled functional and subsequently reclassified. Across 42 publications, it identified 150 patients, with more detailed analysis available for 73. It highlighted risks when clinicians relied on a movement pattern simply appearing unusual or inconsistent with an expected disease and paid insufficient attention to reproducible positive findings of inconsistency. Gait and dystonia presentations were prominent among the selected errors. Marín-Medina et al., 2026.

The review is an important diagnostic caution, but its 150 patients were collected from published misdiagnosis reports rather than a known denominator of all people evaluated for FND. Its percentages describing features among selected errors are not the percentage of all FND diagnoses that are wrong. Publication bias, uneven documentation, and case selection limit population-wide inference. The practical lesson is to test competing explanations and seek coherent positive signs rather than relying on an impression of unusual behavior.

Why a positive neurological diagnosis improves accuracy

An appropriate FND evaluation begins with a symptom-focused history and neurological examination. Clinicians look for reproducible features demonstrating internal inconsistency—such as a change in movement performance under different, controlled conditions—or a recognizable functional event pattern. The purpose is to identify a positive clinical phenotype while examining possible alternative disorders. This approach is described in clinical reviews and the contemporary FND diagnostic literature. Finkelstein and Popkirov, 2023; Lidstone et al., 2020.

Functional weakness: examination signs and limitations

For functional limb weakness, neurologists may assess Hoover's sign or hip abductor signs, interpreted alongside the rest of the motor, sensory, reflex, and gait examination. Hoover's sign assesses a change in involuntary hip extension during a contralateral movement task. Its relevance depends on correct technique, adequate strength in the comparison limb, and the broader examination. Pain, inattention, other neurological impairments, and poorly performed testing can alter interpretation. A positive sign supports a rule-in diagnosis, but the evidence for individual signs includes small studies and performance varies across settings. A practical guide to assessing functional motor weakness, 2025.

An apparently inconsistent examination requires explanation in context. General fatigue, fluctuating performance, discomfort, and task-dependent weakness are not diagnostic by themselves. Clinical confidence improves when the observed positive findings are clear, reproducible, and concordant with the history. A normal MRI does not replace this process. Finkelstein and Popkirov, 2023.

Functional tremor and movement symptoms

In functional tremor, clinicians may examine changes in frequency during paced movement, distractibility, and entrainment under structured examination conditions. However, tremor and other movement disorders often vary with attention, fatigue, medication, and concurrent illnesses, and some organic movement disorders have atypical manifestations. A movement specialist evaluates the entire phenotype rather than using one feature or the absence of an imaging abnormality as proof. The 2026 review specifically underscores the danger of interpreting phenomenological incongruence without stronger positive evidence. Marín-Medina et al., 2026.

Functional seizures require event-specific evidence

Functional seizures, also called psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) in much of the literature, can resemble epileptic seizures, syncope, sleep events, and other episodic disorders. A detailed history, reliable eyewitness description, video of typical events, and relevant neurological testing help distinguish causes. The American Academy of Neurology's 2026 practice guideline recommends considering functional seizures during evaluation, assessing for coexisting epilepsy, and obtaining video-EEG capture of typical events where feasible if substantial diagnostic ambiguity remains. AAN guideline, 2026.

Neither a single sign nor a normal routine EEG excludes epilepsy. Some epileptic events have limited surface EEG correlates, and patients may experience more than one type of attack. A clinician should avoid generalizing evidence from a captured event to all other events that differ in appearance. People with an existing epilepsy diagnosis should never stop antiseizure medication on the basis of a web article or an unreviewed assumption that their events are functional. AAN guideline, 2026.

What makes an FND diagnosis more vulnerable to error?

Diagnostic risk rises when the initial assessment lacks a documented positive sign or characteristic event features, when neurological examination is incomplete, when a clinician places disproportionate weight on psychiatric history, or when an apparent inconsistency is treated as conclusive without considering mimics. Diagnostic difficulties also arise when tests are obtained or interpreted outside the clinical question they were meant to answer. These pitfalls are described in contemporary neurological reviews. Finkelstein and Popkirov, 2023; Walzl, Solomon, and Stone, 2022.

The finding of a traumatic experience, dissociative symptoms, anxiety, depression, or a stressful life event does not confirm FND or exclude structural disease. Such experiences may be associated with some functional presentations, yet they have no universal causal or diagnostic role in an individual patient. Equally, the absence of psychological distress does not invalidate positive neurological findings of FND. A person's emotional presentation should not substitute for an examination.

Patients with preexisting neurological diagnoses can be especially challenging to evaluate because genuine functional symptoms may coexist with structural disease. New complaints deserve their own clinical assessment rather than automatic attribution to the earlier diagnosis. Fragmented care, missing records, and failure to distinguish symptoms by onset and location can further complicate review. Walzl, Solomon, and Stone, 2022.

Which conditions may resemble FND?

Multiple sclerosis and inflammatory neurological disease

FND and multiple sclerosis can share complaints of weakness, sensory change, walking difficulty, fatigue, and visual disturbance. A systematic review documented diagnostic errors in both directions, alongside cases with both disorders. MS assessment depends on the clinical pattern, objective localization, and application of appropriate neurologic criteria and investigations; nonspecific white-matter MRI findings cannot by themselves establish MS. FND assessment depends on its own positive findings. Careful differentiation can prevent both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. Walzl, Solomon, and Stone, 2022.

Epilepsy, syncope, and episodic medical disorders

Episodes of altered awareness, collapse, shaking, or unresponsiveness may reflect epileptic seizures, functional seizures, syncope, cardiac rhythm problems, sleep-related disorders, or metabolic disturbances. A normal routine EEG cannot settle all of these possibilities. Clinicians may use witness testimony, cardiovascular evaluation, ECG, laboratory tests, or video EEG as indicated by the specific event pattern. The possibility of concurrent epilepsy and functional seizures must be explicitly considered. AAN guideline, 2026.

Movement disorders, neuromuscular disease, and spinal conditions

Parkinsonian syndromes, dystonia, tremor disorders, neuropathies, motor neuron disease, myasthenia gravis, myelopathy, and other conditions may share certain motor or gait manifestations with FND. Each has its own history, examination pattern, and potential investigations. Findings that seem atypical for one recognized disorder do not automatically indicate FND. In selected cases, specialist re-examination, electrophysiology, spinal imaging, or longitudinal observation changes the assessment. The exact tests depend on the suspected disorder and presenting findings, rather than on a standardized testing package for everyone. Finkelstein and Popkirov, 2023.

Migraine, vestibular symptoms, and other overlapping conditions

Migraine, persistent dizziness, vestibular disorders, postural symptoms, pain, sleep disorders, medication effects, and systemic illness can complicate symptom interpretation. Co-occurrence is common in neurological practice, and a person can require treatment for more than one contributor to their disability. The aim is to assign each clinical finding to the best-supported explanation and identify what remains uncertain. FND should not become a single catch-all explanation for unrelated symptoms.

What should prompt an FND diagnosis to be reconsidered?

Reassessment is clinically appropriate when symptoms are genuinely new, markedly changed, progressively evolving in an unexpected pattern, or accompanied by objective examination findings not previously accounted for. Examples include newly established abnormal reflexes, a clear anatomical sensory level, persistent new focal weakness, changes in vision requiring neurological assessment, or episodes that differ substantially from previously characterized attacks. The urgency varies by symptoms and circumstances, and the treating clinician should decide which tests or referrals are indicated. Aybek and Perez, 2022; Finkelstein and Popkirov, 2023.

A second review is also reasonable if the original assessment never identified a clear positive sign, if the explanation of the diagnosis was incomplete, if critical records were unavailable, or if a specialist raises a specific alternate hypothesis. A lack of improvement after psychotherapy or rehabilitation does not, by itself, prove a wrong diagnosis: FND outcomes vary and some symptoms persist despite appropriate treatment. At the same time, a poor or changing course should invite renewed clinical review rather than automatic repetition of the previous explanation. Gelauff et al., 2019.

Symptoms requiring urgent medical assessment

Sudden face or arm weakness, new speech loss, a severe abrupt headache, new confusion, or acute one-sided sensory loss can signal stroke or another emergency even in a person previously diagnosed with FND. A first-ever seizure-like episode, an event with serious injury, prolonged unresponsiveness, breathing difficulty, or a clearly different attack pattern requires prompt emergency evaluation. Acute chest pain, serious breathing difficulty, or other major medical warning signs similarly require appropriate urgent care. An established FND diagnosis must never be used as a reason to delay emergency assessment.

How does appropriate follow-up work?

At the original diagnosis

The diagnosing clinician should explain which positive features support FND, what other conditions were considered, which findings require monitoring, and what investigations were completed or remain indicated. Patients benefit from a written summary that separates documented positive signs from untested assumptions. When useful, the clinician can demonstrate a positive motor sign in a respectful way and explain how it relates to the symptom. The diagnosis should lead to a plan for treatment and follow-up, not simply the termination of assessment. Aybek and Perez, 2022.

During initial treatment and rehabilitation

Follow-up should review current symptoms, physical functioning, sleep, pain, mood, medication burden, work or school participation, and any newly emerging neurological concerns. For motor presentations, treatment may include FND-informed physiotherapy or occupational therapy; for functional seizures, specialist neurology and appropriately chosen psychological interventions can be relevant. The treatment plan should reflect the specific subtype, comorbid diagnoses, and patient preferences. Evidence from functional seizure trials and guidelines cannot automatically be transferred to all FND manifestations. Aybek and Perez, 2022; AAN guideline, 2026.

Longer-term monitoring

There is no single evidence-based follow-up interval that fits every person diagnosed with FND. Frequency should depend on diagnostic confidence, functional limitations, symptom stability, access to rehabilitation, risk factors, and coexisting disease. A primary care clinician can coordinate continuing medical care, while neurology follow-up can be especially valuable if events change, examination findings evolve, or new evidence emerges. Long-term cohort findings provide a reason for clinical vigilance without suggesting that every person needs repeated MRI scans or serial testing indefinitely. Gelauff et al., 2019.

Repeated tests can be appropriate when a specific new clinical question arises. Conversely, automatically repeating investigations in response to unchanged symptoms without an evolving hypothesis may create incidental findings, unnecessary treatment, cost, and additional distress. The best approach is a documented shared plan describing when routine monitoring is sufficient and when diagnostic reconsideration is needed.

How can patients ask for a second opinion constructively?

A request for reassessment can be clear and clinically focused: ask which positive findings established the diagnosis, which alternative conditions were evaluated, whether the current symptoms match the original pattern, and what signs should trigger future testing. Collect the original neurological examination notes, MRI or EEG reports where available, medication list, discharge summaries, and a timeline of episodes or progression. For seizure-like events, a safely obtained witness video of a typical episode may assist the clinical team. AAN guideline, 2026.

A second opinion from a neurologist experienced in the presenting symptoms can be particularly useful if the first evaluation was incomplete, if a clear alternate diagnosis has emerged, or if functional and other neurological features may coexist. The second clinician should assess the person directly and interpret existing tests rather than simply treating a label in the medical record as conclusive. The goal is improved diagnostic confidence and coordinated care.

Does FND coexist with other medical or neurological disorders?

Yes. An FND diagnosis does not rule out multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, migraine, a movement disorder, chronic pain, or other medical illnesses. The coexistence of two disorders does not automatically mean that one caused the other. Clinicians can classify symptom groups separately, identify objective findings where available, and tailor care to the contributors that are present. This is essential for avoiding under-treatment of new disease and unnecessary escalation of investigations when symptoms remain consistent with previously established FND. Walzl, Solomon, and Stone, 2022.

This principle is especially important in functional seizures: individuals can have both epileptic and functional attacks. The 2026 AAN practice guideline calls for evaluating coexisting epilepsy and distinguishing event types for treatment. Epilepsy medicines may be indicated for epileptic seizures, while they do not treat functional seizures themselves. Medication changes require qualified clinician supervision. AAN guideline, 2026.

How does diagnostic reliability differ among FND subtypes?

The available outcome studies are uneven. Historical systematic reviews often pooled presentations grouped as conversion symptoms. The Scottish 18-month study examined a broader unexplained-symptom population. The 14-year study focused on functional limb weakness, and the 2026 review selected reported errors involving functional movement diagnoses. Different assessment methods apply to motor signs, gait, tremor, seizure-like events, sensory disturbances, speech symptoms, and cognitive complaints. A single overall percentage should not be presented as a validated subtype-specific error rate.

Functional cognitive complaints introduce particular complexity because mood, sleep, pain, attention, medication, neurodegenerative illness, and performance during formal examination may all affect memory concerns. Proposed functional cognitive disorder criteria are evolving and do not substitute for evaluating neurological and neuropsychological differentials. This article addresses the evidence for reassessment of FND broadly; dedicated diagnostic testing and dementia-comparison questions have separate clinical and editorial ownership.

What about children and adolescents?

Children and teenagers can experience functional neurological symptoms, and their assessment requires pediatric developmental and neurological expertise. Clinicians consider symptom presentation, the child's ability to describe episodes, school functioning, family circumstances, age-appropriate differentials, and safety. Seizure-like events and motor symptoms should be assessed on their clinical merits. Parents should receive a comprehensible explanation and clear instructions about when to seek renewed evaluation. The adult cohorts cited above do not provide a validated pediatric FND misdiagnosis rate.

Follow-up may involve pediatric neurology, rehabilitation, school accommodations, primary care, and mental health professionals as indicated by the child's actual needs. A family history of stress or the presence of school problems should not replace medical evaluation or be treated as proof of causation. A change in symptoms or developmental functioning merits clinical reassessment.

How much certainty do research findings support?

Established evidence supports a positive neurological diagnostic approach and indicates that unexpected changes from an initial functional explanation to another disease explanation have been uncommon in several selected follow-up cohorts. The approximate 4% historical synthesis, the 0.4% broader outpatient cohort, and the approximately 1% functional limb weakness follow-up each have distinct denominators, time horizons, and outcome definitions. None offers a universal guarantee for an individual patient. Stone et al., 2005; Stone et al., 2009; Gelauff et al., 2019.

The relationship between specific examination signs and diagnostic certainty is supported by clinical research, but estimates of sensitivity and specificity depend on how signs were tested and the populations studied. Some commonly cited figures come from small samples or selectively recruited cases. The 2026 misdiagnosed-movement review identifies error patterns and plausible safeguards rather than a population incidence of misdiagnosis. Larger contemporary multicenter cohorts, prospective documentation of positive signs, subtype-specific error rates, pediatric data, and long-term comparative studies remain important evidence gaps. A practical guide to assessing functional motor weakness, 2025; Marín-Medina et al., 2026.

Frequently asked questions

Can an FND diagnosis be wrong?

Yes. Clinical diagnostic error is possible in FND as in other neurological conditions. Published follow-up studies suggest that a well-supported functional diagnosis is generally stable, while new clinical evidence can justify revisiting it. A positive examination finding and appropriate differential diagnosis support greater confidence than a normal scan alone.

What percentage of FND diagnoses are misdiagnosed?

A historical systematic review estimated about 4% in studies from the 1970s onward. Other cohorts have reported different percentages: 0.4% of a broader group with symptoms inadequately explained by disease at 18-month follow-up, and approximately 1% among 89 people with functional limb weakness with sufficient 14-year diagnostic follow-up information. These are different studies of different groups, so no single number describes all patients or subtypes.

Does a normal MRI prove I have FND?

No. An MRI may help investigate some alternative conditions, but it cannot independently establish FND. Clinicians use positive examination findings or characteristic event features, supported by appropriate medical assessment. A normal scan does not rule out every neurological disorder.

Can someone have FND and multiple sclerosis at the same time?

Yes. Case literature and systematic reviews document coexistence. Each condition should be assessed using its own clinical evidence, and symptoms should be evaluated individually rather than assigned wholesale to either diagnosis. Walzl, Solomon, and Stone, 2022.

Can FND and epilepsy coexist?

Yes. Some people experience both functional and epileptic seizures. Neurological evaluation, witness information, and video EEG of typical events when feasible may be essential to distinguish event types and guide treatment. Never discontinue prescribed antiseizure medication without professional advice. AAN guideline, 2026.

If FND treatment does not work, was the diagnosis incorrect?

Limited improvement does not by itself establish diagnostic error. Treatment response varies with presentation, access to specialized care, disability burden, and coexisting illness. Persistent symptoms warrant review of the treatment plan; symptoms that change, progress unexpectedly, or show new objective neurological abnormalities warrant renewed diagnostic assessment.

Should I request another MRI or EEG?

Additional testing is appropriate when a clinician identifies a specific medical question that the test can help answer—for example, a new focal neurological finding or a materially different type of attack. Routine repetition of scans or EEGs without a clinical indication may add little value. Seek individualized advice based on the examination and event history.

Does having trauma or anxiety make an FND diagnosis certain?

No. Psychological history can be relevant to comprehensive care but does not establish FND and cannot exclude another neurological illness. Appropriate diagnosis rests on the neurological presentation and its positive features, with investigation of competing and coexisting conditions as indicated.

When should someone with FND seek emergency care?

Seek urgent assessment for sudden stroke-like changes, a new severe or rapidly worsening neurological deficit, prolonged or unprecedented seizure-like episodes, significant injury, acute breathing difficulties, or other serious new medical symptoms. Prior FND does not explain away an emergency.

Related Articles

For the clinical basis of positive signs and structured assessment, read Functional Neurological Disorder Diagnosis: Positive Signs and Medical Assessment. The broader condition overview is Functional Neurological Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

To understand subtype-specific uncertainty and clinical navigation, see Functional Seizures vs Epileptic Seizures: How Clinicians Distinguish Them, Functional Seizures (PNES): Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment, and Functional Movement Disorder: Types, Diagnosis, and Rehabilitation.

For the clinical course and management, read Can Functional Neurological Disorder Improve? Prognosis and Recovery and Functional Neurological Disorder Treatment: Rehabilitation and Psychological Care. These linked English articles have different primary search intents from the present article on diagnostic accuracy and follow-up.

References

American Academy of Neurology. (2026). Management of functional seizures: Practice guideline executive summary. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214466

Aybek, S., & Perez, D. L. (2022). Diagnosis and management of functional neurological disorder. BMJ, 376, o64. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o64

Finkelstein, S. A., & Popkirov, S. (2023). Functional neurological disorder: Diagnostic pitfalls and differential diagnostic considerations. Neurologic Clinics, 41(4), 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncl.2023.04.001

Gelauff, J. M., Carson, A., Ludwig, L., Tijssen, M. A. J., & Stone, J. (2019). The prognosis of functional limb weakness: A 14-year case-control study. Brain, 142(7), 2137–2148. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz138

Lidstone, S. C., Nassif, W., Juncos, J., Factor, S. A., & Lang, A. E. (2020). Diagnosing functional neurological disorder: Seeing the whole picture. CNS Spectrums. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852920001996

Marín-Medina, D. S., Miño Zambrano, J., Espay, A. J., & Merello, M. (2026). Systematic review of movement disorders mislabeled as functional: When incongruence misleads. Journal of Neurology, 273, article 256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-026-13795-0

Stone, J., Smyth, R., Carson, A., Lewis, S., Prescott, R., Warlow, C., & Sharpe, M. (2005). Systematic review of misdiagnosis of conversion symptoms and “hysteria.” BMJ, 331, 989. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38628.466898.55

Stone, J., et al. (2009). Symptoms “unexplained by organic disease” in 1,144 new neurology out-patients: How often does the diagnosis change at follow-up? PubMed record

Walzl, D., Carson, A. J., & Stone, J. (2019). The misdiagnosis of functional disorders as other neurological conditions. Journal of Neurology, 266, 2018–2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09356-3

Walzl, D., Solomon, A. J., & Stone, J. (2022). Functional neurological disorder and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review of misdiagnosis and clinical overlap. Journal of Neurology, 269, 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-021-10436-6