rss
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:608-611 doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.020552
  • Paper

Reliability of self-reported diagnoses in patients with neurologically unexplained symptoms

  1. A Schrag,
  2. R J Brown,
  3. M R Trimble
  1. Division of Neuropsychiatry and Neuropsychology, Institute of Neurology, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr A Schrag
 Division of Neuropsychiatry and Neuropsychology, Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG; a.schragion.ucl.ac.uk
  • Received 11 June 2003
  • Accepted 16 October 2003
  • Revised 6 August 2003

Abstract

Background: Patients with neurologically unexplained symptoms (NUS) often have a previous history of other medically unexplained symptoms. A past history of such symptoms can help make a positive diagnosis of a somatoform or affective disorder, and enable appropriate management strategies. However, information on past medical diagnoses is primarily obtained from patient interviews and may be inaccurate, particularly in patients with NUS.

Objective: To assess the reliability of past medical diagnoses reported by patients with NUS compared with patients with confirmed neurological disease (ND) without suspicion of somatoform illness.

Methods: 21 patients with NUS and 16 patients with ND were interviewed about their current and past medical problems and diagnoses. The accuracy of the reported diagnoses was assessed through examination of their complete general practice notes.

Results: The median number of previous diagnoses reported by patients with NUS was significantly higher than in controls (7 v 3, p = 0.001). There was no difference in the median number of confirmed diagnoses between the two groups (2 v 2.5); however, the median percentage of reported diagnoses confirmed by investigations was significantly smaller in the NUS group (22% v 80%, p = 0.001). The additional diagnoses reported by patients with NUS not only comprised functional syndromes such as irritable bowel syndrome or non-cardiac chest pain (6% v 0%, p = 0.01), but also organic diagnoses which had either been unequivocally excluded (5% v 0%, p = 0.006), were based on equivocal findings often found after multiple investigations (9% v 0%, p = 0.01), or had not been investigated before a clinical diagnosis was made (50% v 18%, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: Reported previous diagnoses should not be taken at face value when the current differential diagnosis includes a functional/somatoform neurological syndrome, particularly if the list of past medical diagnoses is long. Confirmation of previous diagnoses from alternative sources may contribute to a diagnosis of somatoform disorder, allowing appropriate management strategies for the current (and past) complaints to be initiated.

Footnotes

  • * Note that the apparent error in percentages is the result of calculating median percentages, which differ slightly from the percentages of the overall medians.

  • Competing interests: none declared

Responses to this article

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

BMJ Careers - Latest neurology and neurosurgery jobs