Parkinsonism & related disorders · 2015
The frontal assessment battery is not useful to discriminate progressive supranuclear palsy from frontotemporal dementias.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stamelou M, Diehl-Schmid J, Hapfelmeier A, Kontaxopoulou D, Stefanis L, Oertel W H, Bhatia K P, Papageorgiou S G, Höglinger G U
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The frontal assessment battery (FAB) has been suggested as a useful tool in the differential diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) from Parkinson's disease (PD) and multiple system atrophy with parkinsonism (MSA-P). However, the utility of the FAB in the differential diagnosis of PSP from frontotemporal dementia (FTD) phenotypes is still under research.
METHODS: We performed the FAB, in a multi-centre cohort of 70 PSP, 103 FTD (N = 84 behavioral variant FTD, N = 10 semantic dementia, N = 9 progressive non-fluent aphasia), 26 PD and 11 MSA-P patients, diagnosed according to established criteria. Patients were also rated with the mini mental state examination and motor scales.
RESULTS: The FAB total score showed a poor discriminatory power between PSP and FTD as a group [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.523]. Moreover, the FAB score showed no correlation with disease duration in PSP (r = 0.05) or FTD group (r = 0.04). In contrast, we confirmed that the FAB is clinically useful to differentiate PSP from PD and MSA-P (AUC = 0.927). In fact, the sum of two FAB subscores together (verbal fluency and Luria motor series) were as good as the total score in differentiating PSP from PD and MSA-P (AUC = 0.957).
CONCLUSIONS: The FAB may not be a useful tool to differentiate PSP from FTDs, and shows no correlation with disease duration in these disorders. On the other hand, the essential information to differentiate PSP from PD and MSA-P is contained in the sum of only two FAB subscores. This should be taken into consideration in both clinical practice and the planning of clinical trials.
METHODS: We performed the FAB, in a multi-centre cohort of 70 PSP, 103 FTD (N = 84 behavioral variant FTD, N = 10 semantic dementia, N = 9 progressive non-fluent aphasia), 26 PD and 11 MSA-P patients, diagnosed according to established criteria. Patients were also rated with the mini mental state examination and motor scales.
RESULTS: The FAB total score showed a poor discriminatory power between PSP and FTD as a group [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.523]. Moreover, the FAB score showed no correlation with disease duration in PSP (r = 0.05) or FTD group (r = 0.04). In contrast, we confirmed that the FAB is clinically useful to differentiate PSP from PD and MSA-P (AUC = 0.927). In fact, the sum of two FAB subscores together (verbal fluency and Luria motor series) were as good as the total score in differentiating PSP from PD and MSA-P (AUC = 0.957).
CONCLUSIONS: The FAB may not be a useful tool to differentiate PSP from FTDs, and shows no correlation with disease duration in these disorders. On the other hand, the essential information to differentiate PSP from PD and MSA-P is contained in the sum of only two FAB subscores. This should be taken into consideration in both clinical practice and the planning of clinical trials.