English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Whereas only neurologists can "rule in" functional neurologic disorders (FNDs)-using physical signs and semiologic features-their role in follow-up care remains debated. We outlined the arguments for and against a neurologist's primary role in both assessing and managing FNDs. Favorable arguments include the following: (1) FND presents neurologically, and thus, only neurologists can ascertain the etiology of new neurologic deficits appearing on follow-up, and (2) neurologic encounters facilitate acceptance of diagnosis and enhance treatment engagement. Counter arguments include the following: (1) FND is a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition codified psychiatric disorder with largely psychiatric treatments, and (2) neurologists can reassess patients if new neurologic symptoms develop without playing a primary follow-up role. Although more research is needed to clarify optimal approaches, neurologic expertise could be leveraged for diagnostic and coordinating roles if the pool of neurologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, physical and occupational therapists, and other allied clinicians trained in the interdisciplinary care of FNDs is substantially increased.

Should neurologists diagnose and manage functional neurologic disorders? It is complicated