MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413503160 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsaf071

Systematic review of assessment instruments measuring outcomes in psychological interventions for pediatric functional neurological disorders

2025· article· en· W4413503160 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Žuro, David Hevey, Phillip Coey, Clare Harris, Gary Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychological interventionMEDLINEPsychometricsClinical psychologyCritical appraisalSystematic reviewMedicineReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review focused on identifying and evaluating assessment tools used to measure outcomes of psychological interventions for pediatric functional neurological disorder (FND). METHOD: A comprehensive search was conducted on September 24, 2024, across Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Medline. Studies were included if they involved individuals under 18 with FND diagnosis, utilized a psychological intervention, and assessed treatment outcomes using validated measures. Sixteen studies qualified for inclusion, and 26 different assessment instruments were identified. These were assessed against the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials framework, covering symptoms, life impact, and resource utilization. The psychometric characteristics of these assessment tools were examined through further searches which concentrated on reliability, validity, and factorial invariance. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Findings were synthesized narratively due to the descriptive and exploratory nature of the research aims. RESULTS: No outcome assessment tools designed specifically for pediatric FND populations were identified. Most studies employed measures targeting mental health symptoms and life impact, however, none of these tools were validated with FND samples, and several lacked validation in pediatric populations. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights significant gaps, including the need for psychometric assessment of tools and validation studies on FND samples. The current evidence does not support recommending FND-specific measures due to their limited development and validation. Instead, using existing questionnaires validated on broader pediatric populations is recommended. Research should prioritize the validation of measures in FND populations to establish more robust, standardized tools for clinical and research use.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207