Michael Browning1, Paul Fletcher, Michael Sharpe. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Warneford Lane, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK. michael.browning@psych.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Debate about the nature of somatoform disorders and their current diagnostic classification has been stimulated by the anticipation of new editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems diagnostic classifications. In the current paper, we review systematically the literature on the neuroimaging of somatoform disorders and related conditions with the aim of addressing two specific questions: Is there evidence of altered neural function or structure that is specifically associated with somatoform disorders? What conclusions can we draw from these findings about the etiology of somatoform disorders? METHODS: Studies reporting neuroimaging findings in patients with a somatoform disorder or a functional somatic syndrome (such as fibromyalgia) were found using Pubmed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE database searches. Reported structural and functional neuroimaging findings were then extracted to form a narrative review. RESULTS: A relatively mature literature on symptoms of pain and less developed literatures on conversion and fatigue symptoms were identified. The available evidence indicates that, when compared with nonclinical groups, somatoform diagnoses are associated with increased activity of limbic regions in response to painful stimuli and a generalized decrease in gray matter density; however, methodological considerations restrict the interpretation of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the neuroimaging literature has provided evidence about the possible mechanisms underlying somatoform disorders, this is not yet sufficient to provide a basis for classification. By adopting a wider variety of experimental designs and a more dynamic approach to diagnosis, there is every reason to be hopeful that neuroimaging data will play a significant role in future taxonomies.
OBJECTIVE: Debate about the nature of somatoform disorders and their current diagnostic classification has been stimulated by the anticipation of new editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems diagnostic classifications. In the current paper, we review systematically the literature on the neuroimaging of somatoform disorders and related conditions with the aim of addressing two specific questions: Is there evidence of altered neural function or structure that is specifically associated with somatoform disorders? What conclusions can we draw from these findings about the etiology of somatoform disorders? METHODS: Studies reporting neuroimaging findings in patients with a somatoform disorder or a functional somatic syndrome (such as fibromyalgia) were found using Pubmed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE database searches. Reported structural and functional neuroimaging findings were then extracted to form a narrative review. RESULTS: A relatively mature literature on symptoms of pain and less developed literatures on conversion and fatigue symptoms were identified. The available evidence indicates that, when compared with nonclinical groups, somatoform diagnoses are associated with increased activity of limbic regions in response to painful stimuli and a generalized decrease in gray matter density; however, methodological considerations restrict the interpretation of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the neuroimaging literature has provided evidence about the possible mechanisms underlying somatoform disorders, this is not yet sufficient to provide a basis for classification. By adopting a wider variety of experimental designs and a more dynamic approach to diagnosis, there is every reason to be hopeful that neuroimaging data will play a significant role in future taxonomies.
Authors: S W G Derbyshire; A K P Jones; F Creed; T Starz; C C Meltzer; D W Townsend; A M Peterson; L Firestone Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: T Siessmeier; W A Nix; J Hardt; M Schreckenberger; U T Egle; P Bartenstein Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Tuukka T Raij; Jussi Numminen; Sakari Närvänen; Jaana Hiltunen; Riitta Hari Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-01-31 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: G Lange; J Steffener; D B Cook; B M Bly; C Christodoulou; W-C Liu; J Deluca; B H Natelson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-04-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Greg J Siegle; Stuart R Steinhauer; Michael E Thase; V Andrew Stenger; Cameron S Carter Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Jeffrey M Lackner; Mary Lou Coad; Howard R Mertz; David S Wack; Leonard A Katz; Susan S Krasner; Rebecca Firth; Thomas C Mahl; Alan H Lockwood Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2005-07-21
Authors: P Stoeter; Th Bauermann; R Nickel; L Corluka; J Gawehn; G Vucurevic; G Vossel; U T Egle Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lindsay D Nelson; Sergey Tarima; Ashley A LaRoche; Thomas A Hammeke; William B Barr; Kevin Guskiewicz; Christopher Randolph; Michael A McCrea Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Marieke E van Der Schaaf; Iris C Schmits; Megan Roerink; Dirk E M Geurts; Ivan Toni; Karin Roelofs; Floris P De Lange; Urs M Nater; Jos W M van der Meer; Hans Knoop Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Alexander Otti; Harald Guendel; Peter Henningsen; Claus Zimmer; Afra M Wohlschlaeger; Michael Noll-Hussong Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: M Noll-Hussong; H Glaesmer; S Herberger; K Bernardy; C Schönfeldt-Lecuona; A Lukas; H Guendel; T Nikolaus Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: Alla Landa; Brian A Fallon; Zhishun Wang; Yunsuo Duan; Feng Liu; Tor D Wager; Kevin Ochsner; Bradley S Peterson Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Erwin Lemche; Vincent P Giampietro; Michael J Brammer; Simon A Surguladze; Steven C R Williams; Mary L Phillips Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 4.379