biostudies-literatureCabreira VEU H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networke000918https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC11873336biostudies-literatureUnknown7(1)<h4>Background</h4>Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to other neurocognitive disorders and limited biomarker accuracy. We aimed to develop a new diagnostic checklist to identify FCD versus other neurocognitive disorders.<h4>Methods</h4>The clinical checklist was developed through mixed methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a three-round Delphi study with 45 clinicians from 12 countries and (3) a pilot discriminative accuracy study in consecutive patients attending seven memory services across the UK. Items gathering consensus were incorporated into a pilot checklist. Item redundancy was evaluated with phi coefficients. A briefer checklist was produced by removing items with >10% missing data. Internal validity was tested using Cronbach'BMJ neurology openDevelopment of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.PMC11873336956673Harbo TMcWhirter LRusso MHayhow BToniolo SMarra CTabuas-Pereira MDubois BBall HAScott EPCabreira VSantana ILaFrance CBaslet GAraujo RAlty JAntic SEdwards MMain JTeodoro TWilkinson TBhome RPortela Moreira IFrostholm LFrederiksen KSTorring CWMcGrath ERZeidler MDi Lorenzo FTinazzi MCarson ALarner AStone JCoebergh JHoward RTaipa RPerez DIsaacs JDPennington CMFilipovic SRPopkirov STomic SHuntley JRayment DAybek SMassano JMallam ENobili FSchott JRossor MPal SfalseDevelopment of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.<h4>Background</h4>Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to other neurocognitive disorders and limited biomarker accuracy. We aimed to develop a new diagnostic checklist to identify FCD versus other neurocognitive disorders.<h4>Methods</h4>The clinical checklist was developed through mixed methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a three-round Delphi study with 45 clinicians from 12 countries and (3) a pilot discriminative accuracy study in consecutive patients attending seven memory services across the UK. Items gathering consensus were incorporated into a pilot checklist. Item redundancy was evaluated with phi coefficients. A briefer checklist was produced by removing items with >10% missing data. Internal validity was tested using Cronbach'2025-01-01T00:00:00Z20252025-07-07T03:09:52.753Z2025-04-04T01:12:26.967ZS-EPMC118733364003465310.1136/bmjno-2024-000918