Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background/purpose Behavioral and psychologic symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are major sources of a caregiver's burden and also the most important factor when considering the need for institutionalization of dementia patients. BPSD occur in about 90% of patients with dementia. Studies comparing the BPSD in the major types of dementia using unitary behavioral rating scales are limited. We studied BPSD in patients with four major types of dementias from a memory clinic. Methods We recruited patients with dementia from our memory clinic from January 2003 to February 2004. The Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD) was used to measure BPSD severity. Clinical Dementia Rating and Mini Mental State Examination were used to determine dementia severity. Results A total of 137 patients with four major types of dementia were recruited from 155 patients with dementia who attended the clinic during the study period. The main dementia types identified were Alzheimer's dementia (AD) in 54.8%, vascular dementia (VaD) in 20.6%, frontotemporal dementia (FTD) in 8.4%, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) in 4.5%, and other dementias in 11.6%. BPSD were found in 92.0% of the patients but only 43.1% received psychotropic treatment. The relative risk of receiving psychotropic treatment for BPSD subscales paralleled the extent of caregivers' burden as assessed by the BEHAVE-AD global rating. Type-specific BPSD, e.g. hallucination was identified for DLB, activity disturbances for FTD, anxiety and phobias for AD and affective disturbance for VaD. Conclusion A strategy of targeting type-specific BPSD may be beneficial, such as environmental stimulus control for DLB patients who are prone to have hallucinations, design of a pacing path for patients with FTD who need support for symptoms of wandering and emotional support for patients with VaD who are susceptible to depression.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Chiu, M. J., Chen, T. F., Yip, P. K., Hua, M. S., & Tang, L. Y. (2006). Behavioral and psychologic symptoms in different types of dementia. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-6646(09)60150-9

Vancouver

Chiu MJ, Chen TF, Yip PK, Hua MS, Tang LY. Behavioral and psychologic symptoms in different types of dementia. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi. 2006. doi:10.1016/s0929-6646(09)60150-9. PMID: 16877235.

BibTeX

@article{chiu2006-16877235,
  author  = {Chiu, M. J. and Chen, T. F. and Yip, P. K. and Hua, M. S. and Tang, L. Y.},
  title   = {{Behavioral and psychologic symptoms in different types of dementia}},
  journal = {Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1016/s0929-6646(09)60150-9},
  pmid    = {16877235},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-6646(09)60150-9}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 28 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.28 of the 58 points we could judge = 48 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 2 / 4 137 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16877235)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 28 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total 48 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →