The impact of receiving a diagnosis of Non-Epileptic Attack Disorder (NEAD): A systematic review

• 6 studies with a total of 153 NEAD participants are examined.
• Diagnosis presentation elicited seizure reduction/cessation in around 50% of cases.
• Diagnosis presentation was found to have no significant impact on quality of life.
• The evidence was not high quality, lacking study design and statistical rigour.
• Future research should also consider outcome measures and control groups.

BackgroundClinicians have reported observations of the immediate cessation of non-epileptic attacks after the diagnosis of NEAD is presented.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to examine the impact of receiving a diagnosis of NEAD.Search strategyA literature search across the databases Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL, and additional hand searching, identified six original studies meeting criteria for the review.Selection criteriaIncluded studies were original peer-reviewed articles investigating the impact of receiving a diagnosis of NEAD on adult populations with at least one outcome measured pre- and post-diagnosis.AnalysisThe studies were assessed for methodological quality, including biases. This assessment was developed to include criteria specific to research regarding NEAD and diagnosis.ResultsSix identified studies, with a total of 153 NEAD participants, examined the impact of receiving a diagnosis on seizure frequency. Two of the six also examined the impact on health-related quality of life. The findings were inconsistent, with approximately half the participants experiencing seizure reduction or cessation post-diagnosis. Diagnosis appeared to have no significant impact on health-related quality of life. The overall evidence lacked quality, particularly in study design and statistical rigour.ConclusionsMixed results and a lack of high quality evidence were found. Concerns are considered regarding the appropriateness of seizure frequency as the primary outcome measure and the use of epilepsy control groups. Indications for future research include: measuring more meaningful outcomes, using larger samples and power calculations, and ensuring consistent and standard methods for communicating the diagnosis and recording outcomes.