ReviewRhode Island medical journal (2013)2025
The Diagnostic Landscape of Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia.
Review in Rhode Island medical journal (2013), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by profound changes in personality, behavior, and social comportment. Diagnosis of bvFTD is challenging, and it is frequently misdiagnosed as an idiopathic psychiatric disorder (e.g., major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder) or another neurodegenerative disease (e.g., Alzheimer's disease dementia). The diagnostic challenge is exacerbated by a lack of reliable in vivo biological markers of disease pathology, which means that, at present, diagnosis relies largely on detailed behavioral and cognitive assessments. In this article, we discuss how clinical diagnostic criteria for bvFTD have evolved over the past three decades, and emphasize the diagnostic uncertainty that can arise when trying to distinguish between bvFTD and primary psychiatric disorders or other neurodegenerative diseases. In highlighting the strengths and limitations of the revised diagnostic criteria, and taking into account current diagnostic predicaments, we provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians facing this diagnostic question. Finally, we touch on the importance of early (i.e., prodromal) diagnosis, and explain the utility of biomarkers for bvFTD diagnosis, with a nod to exciting research developments in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40300053PMC12207340What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.