Source study found

Story checked

How dismissed symptoms can push patients to breaking point (opens in a new tab)

medicalxpress.com · 2026-10-26

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

One claim goes further than the study. 2 other points were not covered by the paper.

2 supported
1 overstated
2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail

The story

How dismissed symptoms can push patients to breaking point

medicalxpress.com · 2026-10-26

The story’s checkable claims.

Read the original story

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

One claim overstates the study. Two of five check out. Two claims the study doesn't address.

2 supported
1 overstated
2 not covered

Open claim evidence

The source study

P048 “False dichotomies” and “FND fundamentalists”: an international mixed methods exploration of clinician and rheumatology patients’ views and experiences of functional neurological disorder (FND) co-diagnoses

Rheumatology · 2026

Open source record

Source paper

Source layer

The 2 papers the story cites

Source study separated from background citations.

The research anchor for the report.

The study this story reportspresented as the new finding
P048 “False dichotomies” and “FND fundamentalists”: an international mixed methods exploration of clinician and rheumatology patients’ views and experiences of functional neurological disorder (FND) co-diagnoses
Rheumatology · 2026
Publisher (opens in a new tab)
The study this story reportspresented as the new finding
"False dichotomies" and "FND fundamentalists": an international mixed methods exploration of clinician and rheumatology patients' views and experiences of functional neurological disorder (FND) co-diagnoses
Publisher (opens in a new tab)

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

Reading mode

Scan verdicts. Open evidence only when needed.

Browse by verdict

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5OverstatedResearchers analyzed international surveys from 1,853 patients, 400 clinicians and 463 members of the public, plus in-depth interviews, and reported that agreement with diagnoses varied: 86% agreed with depression, 53% with fibromyalgia, 30% with FND, and only 7% agreed with being told symptoms were 'psychosomatic'.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated1,853 patients; 400 clinicians; 463 members of the public; 86%/53%/30%/7% agreement figures

Why this verdict

Several parts are supported: the survey included 1,853 patients and 463 general-population respondents; the abstract reports 86% agreement with depression, 30% with FND, and 7% with psychosomatic-labelled diagnoses; and interviews were conducted. But the supplied profile reports 301 clinician survey respondents, not 400, and the 53% fibromyalgia figure is not present in the abstract-level profile. Thus the claim’s quantitative detail is partly supported but overstated/not fully supported as stated.

Study evidence

Patients’ self-reported agreement with co-diagnoses was higher for depression (86%) than for FND (30%), and lowest for diagnoses labelled explicitly as “psychosomatic” (7%).86% vs 30% vs 7%

“Mixed methods were used… Online surveys were completed as part of the international INSPIRE project”

Study evidence

Receiving an FND co-diagnosis was frequently distressing for patients when the communication implied symptoms were under the patient’s control.

“interviewees purposively selected from survey respondents to ensure sociodemographic diversity.”

Claim 2 of 5Not coveredPatients have been left feeling suicidal after feeling like their doctor was saying their symptoms were 'all in their head'—according to research from the University of East Anglia and the University of Cambridge.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that some patients found FND co-diagnoses distressing when communication implied symptoms were under their control. However, the supplied abstract evidence does not verify the specific headline claim that patients were left feeling suicidal, nor the exact 'all in their head' framing. The headline therefore outruns what is verifiable from the abstract profile.

Study evidence

Receiving an FND co-diagnosis was frequently distressing for patients when the communication implied symptoms were under the patient’s control.

“interviewees purposively selected from survey respondents to ensure sociodemographic diversity.”

Claim 3 of 5Not coveredThe article says some patients described feeling guilt, shame, loss of trust and suicidal thoughts when an FND diagnosis seemed to imply their symptoms were psychological or under their control.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports distress when an FND co-diagnosis was communicated as implying symptoms were under the patient’s control. It does not verify the more specific details of guilt, shame, loss of trust, or suicidal thoughts. Those details may require full-text qualitative evidence, so they are not verifiable at abstract depth.

Study evidence

Receiving an FND co-diagnosis was frequently distressing for patients when the communication implied symptoms were under the patient’s control.

“interviewees purposively selected from survey respondents to ensure sociodemographic diversity.”

Claim 4 of 5SupportedA new study uncovers concerns about misdiagnosis, stigma and inconsistent care for people with autoimmune diseases who are also diagnosed with functional neurological disorder (FND), and says there are deep disagreements between clinicians over FND diagnoses.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile supports concerns about misdiagnosis, poor communication, stigma/potential stigma, and substantial disagreement or conflict around FND co-diagnosis in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. It also supports variation in clinician conceptual stance and diagnostic practice. 'Inconsistent care' is not a separately quantified outcome in the abstract, but is reasonably reflected by the reported poor communication and clinician-position-dependent diagnostic practice.

Study evidence

Patients’ self-reported agreement with co-diagnoses was higher for depression (86%) than for FND (30%), and lowest for diagnoses labelled explicitly as “psychosomatic” (7%).86% vs 30% vs 7%

“Mixed methods were used… Online surveys were completed as part of the international INSPIRE project”

Study evidence

Receiving an FND co-diagnosis was frequently distressing for patients when the communication implied symptoms were under the patient’s control.

“interviewees purposively selected from survey respondents to ensure sociodemographic diversity.”

Claim 5 of 5SupportedThe study found that the way a diagnosis was explained mattered, with patients more likely to accept it when doctors listened, explained why they thought a symptom had a particular cause, and clarified how FND-related symptoms differed from autoimmune-disease symptoms.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The qualitative abstract evidence supports that successful diagnostic appointments involved empathetic, accessible explanations of functional disorders, including explaining how symptoms fit and how functional symptoms differ from SARD-attributable symptoms. The story’s 'more likely to accept' framing is somewhat interpretive, but consistent with the profile’s account of successful diagnostic encounters.

Study evidence

Receiving an FND co-diagnosis was frequently distressing for patients when the communication implied symptoms were under the patient’s control.

“interviewees purposively selected from survey respondents to ensure sociodemographic diversity.”

Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

The survey evidence is observational, self-reported, and descriptive, so it supports perceptions and reported experiences rather than objective rates of misdiagnosis or causal effects of communication.
The story mentions uncertainty about symptom attribution, but it does not clearly caveat that the survey results are self-reported/descriptive and cannot establish objective misdiagnosis rates or causal effects.
From Online cross-sectional survey (INSPIRE)
The qualitative findings come from a modest, purposively sampled interview sample, limiting transferability to all SARD patients and clinicians.
The story does not mention the modest qualitative sample size, purposive sampling, or transferability limitations noted in the profile.
From Qualitative in-depth interviews with purposive sampling; thematic analysis

7 things the story did carry across

The paper’s main quantitative component was an international INSPIRE online survey of SARD patients, clinicians, and general-population respondents about views on FND co-diagnosis.
Patients’ agreement with co-diagnosis labels was much higher for depression than for FND and lowest for diagnoses labelled psychosomatic: 86%, 30%, and 7% respectively in the abstract profile.
The abstract profile reports clinician concern about incorrect FND diagnosis, including 30% of clinicians estimating FND was incorrectly given in around half of lupus cases or more.
The qualitative component used in-depth interviews with 18 patients and 26 clinicians, purposively sampled from survey respondents and analyzed thematically.
A key qualitative finding was that FND co-diagnoses could be distressing when patients perceived the explanation as implying symptoms were under their control.
Successful diagnostic appointments were characterized by empathetic, accessible explanations that explained how symptoms fit and differentiated functional symptoms from SARD-attributable symptoms.
Clinicians’ conceptual stance toward FND, including dualistic versus biopsychosocial views, influenced diagnostic practice and communication.

Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataCharacterize (quantitatively) patients’, clinicians’, and general population views on the justifiability/acceptability/accuracy/helpfulness of FND as a co-diagnosis in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), including perceived misdiagnosis and communication quality, using an international online survey (INSPIRE).Online cross-sectional survey (INSPIRE)Expand

In plain English

International INSPIRE online survey of three respondent groups (patients, clinicians, general population) assessing views on justifiability/acceptability/accuracy/helpfulness of FND as a co-diagnosis in SARDs. Quantitative analyses were descriptive with group comparisons using t-tests and ANOVA; reported key proportions include patient agreement with co-diagnoses for depression (86%), FND (30%), and labels explicitly using “psychosomatic” (7%), and 30% of clinicians estimating that FND was given incorrectly in "around half of all cases or more" for lupus patients.

Key findings

Patients’ self-reported agreement with co-diagnoses was higher for depression (86%) than for FND (30%), and lowest for diagnoses labelled explicitly as “psychosomatic” (7%).86% vs 30% vs 7%
Among clinicians, 30% estimated that FND was given incorrectly in "around half of all cases or more" for lupus patients.30%

“Mixed methods were used… Online surveys were completed as part of the international INSPIRE project”

2human in vivoExplain (qualitatively) how patients and clinicians experience and interpret FND co-diagnoses in SARDs, including what constitutes a successful diagnostic appointment and how clinicians’ conceptual stance (biopsychosocial vs dualistic) shapes diagnosis and communication, using in-depth interviews.Qualitative in-depth interviews with purposive sampling; thematic analysisExpand

In plain English

Purposively sampled in-depth interviews with SARD patients (n=18) and clinicians (n=26) analyzed thematically to explore how FND co-diagnoses are experienced and interpreted. Key themes: FND co-diagnoses are contentious; receiving an FND label can be distressing when perceived to imply symptoms are under patient control; successful diagnostic encounters use empathetic, accessible explanations that situate functional symptoms alongside SARD-attributable symptoms; and clinicians’ conceptual stance (biopsychosocial vs dualistic) strongly influences communication and likelihood of an FND co-diagnosis.

Key findings

Receiving an FND co-diagnosis was frequently distressing for patients when the communication implied symptoms were under the patient’s control.
Successful diagnostic appointments were characterized by empathetic, accessible explanations of functional disorders that explain how symptoms fit and how functional symptoms differ from those directly attributable to the SARD.

“interviewees purposively selected from survey respondents to ensure sociodemographic diversity.”

What this piece can’t prove

Qualitative sample sizes are modest and purposively drawn from survey respondents, which may limit transferability to all SARD patients or clinicians.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer