HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

To: Journal of PRACTICAL NEUROLOGY Letters

Electronic Letters to:

Research papers: C Wedderburn, H Wear, J Brown, S J Mason, R A Barker, J Hodges, and C Williams-Gray The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79: 500-503 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease

Andrew J Larner, Pavla Hancock, Brooker Centre, Runcorn   (29 May 2008)

The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease 29 May 2008
Andrew J Larner, Consultant Neurologist Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, Pavla Hancock, Brooker Centre, Runcorn Send letter to journal: Re: The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease a.larner{at}thewaltoncentre.nhs.uk Andrew J Larner, et al.	Dear Editor Like Dr Wedderburn and colleagues,1 we have investigated the clinical utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory (CBI), but in patients attending memory clinics and not preselected for clinical diagnosis. This pragmatic approach has shown that the difference in CBI global score (possible range 0-324) between patients diagnosed with dementia (range 20-239, mean 99.3 +/- 54.0) and without dementia (range 10-120, mean 59.1 +/- 34.8) was statistically significant (t = 3.49, p < 0.001).2 However, as regards the ability of the CBI to discriminate between neurodegenerative diseases, specifically Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), as defined by NINCDS-ADRDA and Neary criteria respectively, our experience differs from that of the Cambridge group. In our combined cohort of patients (N = 159, dementia prevalence 63%), the difference between the CBI global scores for patients with AD (n= 79, range 20-239, mean 93.6 +/- 53.1) and FTD (n = 11, range 19-216, mean 101.2 +/- 56.3) did not reach statistical significance (t = 0.44, p > 0.5). Whilst these data do not speak to the question of Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease, where clinical diagnosis is usually straightforward, they suggest that caution may be necessary before using the CBI to differentiate between AD and FTD. This observation may simply be a reflection of the symptom overlap between AD and FTD as defined by clinical diagnostic criteria.3 Andrew J Larner References 1. Wedderburn C, Wear H, Brown J et al. The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:500-3. 2. Larner AJ. Cambridge Behavioural Inventory: diagnostic and differential diagnostic utility. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:351-2 (abstract 61). 3. Varma AR, Snowden JS, Lloyd JJ et al. Evaluation of the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria in the differentiation of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:184-8.