See Appendix for list of collaborators.
Article first published online: 4 JAN 2012
Copyright © 2012 Movement Disorder Society
Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 548–552, April 2012
How to Cite
Morgante, F., Edwards, M. J., Espay, A. J., Fasano, A., Mir, P., Martino, D. and on behalf of the DISMOV-SIN study group on psychogenic movement disorders (2012), Diagnostic agreement in patients with psychogenic movement disorders. Mov. Disord., 27: 548–552. doi: 10.1002/mds.24903
Relevant conflicts of interest/financial disclosures: Nothing to report.
Full financial disclosures and author roles may be found in the online version of this article.
- Issue published online: 4 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 4 JAN 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 7 DEC 2011
- Manuscript Revised: 21 NOV 2011
- Manuscript Received: 14 MAR 2011
- psychogenic movement disorders;
- diagnostic criteria;
- interobserver agreement;
The reliability and applicability of published diagnostic criteria for psychogenic movement disorders (PMDs) have never been examined.
Eight movement disorder and six general neurologists rated 14 patients diagnosed with PMD and 14 patients diagnosed with organic movement disorders. Raters provided a dichotomous judgment (i.e., psychogenic or organic) upon review of video-based movement phenomenology and a category of diagnostic certainty based on the Fahn-Williams and Shill-Gerber criteria after accessing standardized clinical information. We measured interobserver agreement on the diagnosis and clinical certainty judgment of PMD.
In both groups of raters, agreements were “fair” on the video-based dichotomous judgment, but improved to “substantial” after access to standardized clinical information. “Slight” to “poor” agreement was reached for the “probable” and “possible” categories of diagnostic certainty corresponding to both diagnostic criteria.
Diagnosis according to clinical available criteria for PMD yields poor diagnostic agreement. © 2012 Movement Disorder Society