Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29441012›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2018

A Modified Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test Predicts Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia Better Than Executive Function Tests.

Matthias L Schroeter, Sarah Pawelke, Sandrine Bisenius, Jana Kynast, Katharina Schuemberg, Maryna Polyakova, Sarah Anderl-Straub, Adrian Danek, Klaus Fassbender, Holger Jahn and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Matthias L SchroeterLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Sarah PawelkeLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Sandrine BiseniusLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Jana KynastLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Katharina SchuembergLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Maryna PolyakovaLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Sarah Anderl-StraubDepartment of Neurology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Adrian DanekDepartment of Neurology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Klaus FassbenderDepartment of Neurology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Holger JahnDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Frank JessenDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, The German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Bonn, Germany.
Johannes KornhuberDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Martin LauerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Johannes PrudloDepartment of Neurology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Anja SchneiderDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, The German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Bonn, Germany.
Ingo UttnerDepartment of Neurology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Angelika Thöne-OttoLeipzig & Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Markus OttoDepartment of Neurology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Janine Diehl-SchmidDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is characterized by deep alterations in behavior and personality. Although revised diagnostic criteria agree for executive dysfunction as most characteristic, impairments in social cognition are also suggested. The study aimed at identifying those neuropsychological and behavioral parameters best discriminating between bvFTD and healthy controls. Eighty six patients were diagnosed with possible or probable bvFTD according to Rascovsky et al. (2011) and compared with 43 healthy age-matched controls. Neuropsychological performance was assessed with a modified Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), Stroop task, Trail Making Test (TMT), Hamasch-Five-Point Test (H5PT), and semantic and phonemic verbal fluency tasks. Behavior was assessed with the Apathy Evaluation Scale, Frontal Systems Behavioral Scale, and Bayer Activities of Daily Living Scale. Each test's discriminatory power was investigated by Receiver Operating Characteristic curves calculating the area under the curve (AUC). bvFTD patients performed significantly worse than healthy controls in all neuropsychological tests. Discriminatory power (AUC) was highest in behavioral questionnaires, high in verbal fluency tasks and the RMET, and lower in executive function tests such as the Stroop task, TMT and H5PT. As fluency tasks depend on several cognitive functions, not only executive functions, results suggest that the RMET discriminated better between bvFTD and control subjects than other executive tests. Social cognition should be incorporated into diagnostic criteria for bvFTD in the future, such as in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11, as already suggested in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM)-5.

Indexed as

behavioral variant frontotemporal dementiadiagnostic criteriaexecutive functionsocial cognitiontheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID29441012
PMCPMC5797534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.