Home › Research › Digital health tools
Frontotemporal dementia: a review for primary care physicians
Cardarelli R, Kertesz A, Knebl JA.. American family physician, 2010-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is one of the most common forms of dementia in persons younger than 65 years. Variants include behavioral variant FTD, semantic dementia, and progressive nonfluent aphasia. Behavioral and language manifestations are core features of FTD, and patients have relatively preserved memory, which differs from Alzheimer disease. Common behavioral features include loss of insight, social inappropriateness, and emotional blunting. Common language features are loss of comprehension and object knowledge (semantic dementia), and nonfluent and hesitant speech (progressive nonfluent aphasia). Neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging) usually demonstrates focal atrophy in addition to excluding other etiologies. A careful history and physical examination, and judicious use of magnetic resonance imaging, can help distinguish FTD from other common forms of dementia, including Alzheimer disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and vascular dementia. Although no cure for FTD exists, symptom management with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, and galantamine has been shown to be beneficial. Primary care physicians have a critical role in identifying patients with FTD and assembling an interdisciplinary team to care for patients with FTD, their families, and caregivers.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cardarelli, R., Kertesz, A., & Knebl, J. A. (2010). Frontotemporal dementia: a review for primary care physicians. American family physician.
Vancouver
Cardarelli R, Kertesz A, Knebl JA. Frontotemporal dementia: a review for primary care physicians. American family physician. 2010. PMID: 21121521.
BibTeX
@article{cardarelli2010-21121521,
author = {Cardarelli, R. and Kertesz, A. and Knebl, J. A.},
title = {{Frontotemporal dementia: a review for primary care physicians}},
journal = {American family physician},
year = {2010},
pmid = {21121521}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Common language features are loss of comprehension and object knowledge (semantic dementia), and nonfluent and hesitant speech (progressive nonfluent aphasia).
- Neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging) usually demonstrates focal atrophy in addition to excluding other etiologies.
- A careful history and physical examination, and judicious use of magnetic resonance imaging, can help distinguish FTD from other common forms of dementia, including Alzheimer disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and vascular dementia.
- Although no cure for FTD exists, symptom management with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, and galantamine has been shown to be beneficial.
- Primary care physicians have a critical role in identifying patients with FTD and assembling an interdisciplinary team to care for patients with FTD, their families, and caregivers.
Why it matters
This review for primary care physicians describes frontotemporal dementia variants, their behavioral and language features, and the use of neuroimaging to distinguish FTD from other dementias. Although no cure for FTD exists, symptom management with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, and galantamine has been shown to be beneficial.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 31/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, so that was left out: it earned 30 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American family physician) |
| 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 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 54 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 3.0 citations a year over 18 year(s) since 2010 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Janice A Knebl: h-index 16 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | University of North Texas Health Science Center: institution h-index 276 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21121521) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,224 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 1,224 tagged studies.