Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Frontal behavioral inventory: diagnostic criteria for frontal lobe dementia
Kertesz A, Davidson W, Fox H.. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques, 1997-02-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Objective To utilize the diagnostic criteria of frontal lobe dementia (FLD). Methods We studied 12 patients with FLD diagnosed clinically, with radiological confirmation in 10 and autopsy confirmation in 2; sixteen patients with Alzheimer's disease matched for stage and severity to FLD and 11 patients with depressive dementia were used as control groups. A 24-item Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI) using the most relevant behavioral manifestations of FLD was administered in these populations. Results FLD patient scores on the FBI were much higher compared with control groups (AD and DD). Item analysis showed loss of insight, indifference, distractibility, personal neglect and apathy as the most frequent negative symptoms. Perseveration, disinhibition, inappropriateness, impulsivity, and irresponsibility were the most significant positive symptoms. An operational definition of FLD included a minimum FBI score of 27. Only one false positive was shown in the depressive group and none among the AD group, indicating little overlap between patient groups, and a high discriminating value of the FBI. Conclusions The FBI appears to be a useful diagnostic instrument and a method to operate the behavioral criteria of FLD. Further prospective studies are warranted to establish validity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kertesz, A., Davidson, W., & Fox, H. (1997). Frontal behavioral inventory: diagnostic criteria for frontal lobe dementia. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0317167100021053
Vancouver
Kertesz A, Davidson W, Fox H. Frontal behavioral inventory: diagnostic criteria for frontal lobe dementia. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques. 1997. doi:10.1017/s0317167100021053. PMID: 9043744.
BibTeX
@article{kertesz1997-9043744,
author = {Kertesz, A. and Davidson, W. and Fox, H.},
title = {{Frontal behavioral inventory: diagnostic criteria for frontal lobe dementia}},
journal = {The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques},
year = {1997},
doi = {10.1017/s0317167100021053},
pmid = {9043744},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s0317167100021053}
}
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
- Results FLD patient scores on the FBI were much higher compared with control groups (AD and DD).
- Perseveration, disinhibition, inappropriateness, impulsivity, and irresponsibility were the most significant positive symptoms.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants12
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques) |
| 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 | 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 12 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 9043744) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also in Getting a diagnosis
141 studies in the library are filed under Getting a diagnosis with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Getting a diagnosis hub.