Reader response: Therapeutic benefits of early electrophysiological testing in a functional neurology case
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

We read the article by Powell et al.1 with interest. We advocate using clinical neurophysiology to help make the diagnosis of functional neurologic disorders (FND). Such testing can improve diagnostic certainty. We agree that the testing is valuable but for the opposite reason that the authors suggest. The clinical findings themselves were suggestive of FND. The neurophysiology points to a cerebral abnormality of motor and sensory functions. Despite the normal neuroimaging, this still could have been an episode of demyelination or another disorder. Functional disorders are often seen together with other neurologic disorders,2 a situation often referred to as functional overlay. These abnormal evoked responses could be the consequence of FND. However, many more clinical neurophysiologic studies of FND have shown normal central motor and sensory conductions.3 If the findings were normal, that would be good evidence for a functional disorder. As they were abnormal, the interpretation is less certain. From a clinical point of view, the patient had positive features of FND, so it was reasonable to treat those aspects of his presentation, but not—in our view—using the clinical neurophysiology as evidence of that diagnosis.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (ncpjournal{at}neurology.org)
- © 2020 American Academy of Neurology
References
- 1.↵
- Powell A,
- Hurelbrink CB,
- Hayes MW
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- Hallett M,
- Stone J,
- Carson A
- Hallett M
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All contributors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.cp.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.