Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 17;2020(7):CD005331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005331.pub3

Summary of findings 12. Psychotherapy preceded by motivational interviewing compared with psychotherapy alone.

Psychotherapy preceded by motivational interviewing compared with psychotherapy alone for conversion disorder
Patient or population: people with conversion disorder according to DSM‐IV or ICD‐10 criteria
Settings: outpatient
Intervention: psychotherapy preceded by motivational interviewing
Comparison: psychotherapy alone
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) No of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Psychotherapy Psychotherapy preceded by motivational interviewing
Reduction in physical signs
Decrease in seizure frequency
End of treatment
The mean reduction in physical signs in the control group was 34.8 MD 41.40 higher
(4.92 higher to 77.88 higher)
54
(1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b Psychotherapy preceded by motivational interviewing may have little effect on physical signs at end of treatment.
Level of functioning No studies assessed this outcome.
Quality of life
As measured by QOLIE10 (lower is better)
Range: 10–50
End of treatment
The mean quality of life in the control group was 1.8 MD 5.40 higher
(0.26 higher to 10.54 higher)
47
(1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b Psychotherapy preceded by motivational interviewing may have little effect on quality of life at end of treatment.
Adverse events No studies assessed this outcome.
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; DSM‐IV:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition; ICD‐10:International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; MD: mean difference; QOLIE10: quality of life in epilepsy.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aDowngraded one level due to high risk of bias.
bDowngraded two level due to imprecision (wide confidence interval, based on one study with few participants).