↓ Skip to main content

Is the Frontal Assessment Battery reliable in ALS patients?

Overview of attention for article published in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is the Frontal Assessment Battery reliable in ALS patients?
Published in
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, August 2012
DOI 10.3109/17482968.2012.712974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joost Raaphorst, Emma Beeldman, Bregje Jaeger, Ben Schmand, Leonard H. van den Berg, Janneke G. Weikamp, H. Jurgen Schelhaas, Marianne de Visser, Rob J. de Haan

Abstract

The assessment of frontal functions in ALS patients is important because of the overlap with the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). We investigated the applicability and reliability of the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) within a cohort of predominantly prevalent ALS patients. The FAB was administered to 85 ALS patients and eight ALS-bvFTD patients. Original scores and the percentage of items that could be performed were recorded. Item-adjusted scores of the FAB were calculated. The ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised version (ALSFRS-R) was used to assess disease severity. Eighty-seven patients (94%) had ALS symptoms of more than one year. Twenty patients (21.5%) were not able to perform one or more FAB items. The original FAB score correlated with the ALSFRS-R score (r = 0.30; p < 0.01), while the item-adjusted FAB score did not. In contrast to the original FAB scores, the item-adjusted FAB score was lower in ALS-bvFTD patients (66.7, range 33.3-100) compared to ALS patients without bvFTD (94.4, range 38.9-100; p < 0.01). In summary, 20% of prevalent ALS patients could not complete the FAB, which limits its use in ALS and emphasizes the importance of disease specific instruments and adjusting for motor impairment in cognitive and behavioural examinations of ALS patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Psychology 6 19%
Neuroscience 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration
#678
of 1,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,172
of 185,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 185,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.