A systematic review of cognitive and behavioral tools to differentiate behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from other conditions.

PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences Pub Date : 2024-06-16 eCollection Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1002/pcn5.210
Joshua Flavell, Peter John Nestor
{"title":"A systematic review of cognitive and behavioral tools to differentiate behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from other conditions.","authors":"Joshua Flavell, Peter John Nestor","doi":"10.1002/pcn5.210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is thought to be the commonest clinical presentation of frontotemporal lobar degeneration and is predominantly characterized by changes in behavior. In patients lacking unequivocal biomarker evidence of frontotemporal neurodegeneration, the clinical diagnosis of bvFTD is often unstable. In response, we conducted a systematic review and critical appraisal of cognitive and behavioral tools that have sought to differentiate bvFTD from other conditions. A systematic literature review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted on December 31, 2023 for cognitive and behavioral tools that differentiated bvFTD from other cohorts. Ninety-six studies were included. The quality appraisal of almost all studies was low and introduced a high risk of bias. The few studies that were of high quality had a prospective study design and recruited patients suspected (but not yet confirmed) to have bvFTD. These studies reported that behavioral tools (e.g., the Frontal Behavioral Inventory) and social cognition tests (e.g., the Ekman's Faces Test) had good test performance in differentiating bvFTD from a broad range of psychiatric and neurological conditions. Importantly, the review highlighted the extreme paucity of studies that have evaluated methods where, in Bayesian terms, there is genuine clinical uncertainty regarding a diagnosis of bvFTD. Most studies used healthy controls of typical Alzheimer's disease as comparators-groups that often have negligible pretest probability of bvFTD. In response, we propose a study design checklist for studies seeking to develop diagnostic algorithms in bvFTD research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74405,"journal":{"name":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","volume":"3 2","pages":"e210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11180949/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is thought to be the commonest clinical presentation of frontotemporal lobar degeneration and is predominantly characterized by changes in behavior. In patients lacking unequivocal biomarker evidence of frontotemporal neurodegeneration, the clinical diagnosis of bvFTD is often unstable. In response, we conducted a systematic review and critical appraisal of cognitive and behavioral tools that have sought to differentiate bvFTD from other conditions. A systematic literature review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted on December 31, 2023 for cognitive and behavioral tools that differentiated bvFTD from other cohorts. Ninety-six studies were included. The quality appraisal of almost all studies was low and introduced a high risk of bias. The few studies that were of high quality had a prospective study design and recruited patients suspected (but not yet confirmed) to have bvFTD. These studies reported that behavioral tools (e.g., the Frontal Behavioral Inventory) and social cognition tests (e.g., the Ekman's Faces Test) had good test performance in differentiating bvFTD from a broad range of psychiatric and neurological conditions. Importantly, the review highlighted the extreme paucity of studies that have evaluated methods where, in Bayesian terms, there is genuine clinical uncertainty regarding a diagnosis of bvFTD. Most studies used healthy controls of typical Alzheimer's disease as comparators-groups that often have negligible pretest probability of bvFTD. In response, we propose a study design checklist for studies seeking to develop diagnostic algorithms in bvFTD research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统回顾用于区分行为变异型额颞叶痴呆症与其他疾病的认知和行为工具。
额颞叶痴呆行为变异型(bvFTD)被认为是额颞叶变性最常见的临床表现,主要以行为改变为特征。在缺乏额颞叶神经变性的明确生物标志物证据的患者中,bvFTD 的临床诊断往往不稳定。为此,我们对试图将 bvFTD 与其他疾病区分开来的认知和行为工具进行了系统性回顾和批判性评估。2023年12月31日,我们对PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science进行了系统性文献综述,研究将bvFTD与其他群组区分开来的认知和行为工具。共纳入 96 项研究。几乎所有研究的质量评估都较低,且存在较高的偏倚风险。少数质量较高的研究采用了前瞻性研究设计,并招募了疑似(但尚未确诊)患有 bvFTD 的患者。这些研究报告称,行为工具(如额叶行为量表)和社会认知测试(如埃克曼面孔测试)在区分 bvFTD 与各种精神和神经疾病方面具有良好的测试性能。重要的是,该综述强调,在贝叶斯术语中,对 bvFTD 诊断存在真正临床不确定性的情况下,评估方法的研究极少。大多数研究使用典型阿尔茨海默病的健康对照组作为对比组--这些对照组的 bvFTD 检测前概率往往微乎其微。为此,我们提出了一份研究设计清单,供在 bvFTD 研究中寻求开发诊断算法的研究使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adherence to outpatient care among individuals with pre-existing psychiatric disorders following the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake: A retrospective study. Middle-aged man with primary hyperparathyroidism-associated psychosis: A case report. Launching a child and adolescent psychiatry training program in Mongolia inspired by Japanese models. Long-term mental health crisis among municipal public employees caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident and subsequent disasters: Questionnaire survey 10 years postdisaster. Pivotal role of venous blood gas analysis in the detection of metabolic acidosis due to laxative abuse in an anorexia nervosa patient: A case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1