Miriam Hurtado-Pomares1, M Carmen Terol-Cantero1,2, Alicia Sánchez-Pérez1, Paula Peral-Gómez1, Desirée Valera-Gran1,3, Eva María Navarrete-Muñoz4,5,3. 1. Department of Pathology and Surgery, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Alicante, Spain. 2. Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Alicante, Spain. 3. Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL-FISABIO Foundation), Alicante, Spain. 4. CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. 5. Department of Public Health, History of Medicine and Gynecology, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frontal assessment battery (FAB) is a brief tool designed to evaluate executive function. Some studies have particularly focused on assessing its applicability addressing two issues: first, on detecting the brain regions responsible for the FAB performance, and second, on determining its capability for differential diagnosis. Our aim was to summarize and analyze critically the studies that assessed the neuroanatomical correspondence and the differential diagnostic value of the FAB in several study populations suffering from different pathologies. METHODS: We completed a literature search in MEDLINE (via PubMed) database by using the term "frontal assessment battery" and the combination of this term with "applicability" or "use" or "usefulness". The search was limited to articles in English or Spanish languages, published between 1 September 2000 and 30 September 2016, human studies, and journal articles. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies were aimed at identifying the brain regions or the neural substrates involved in executive functions measured by the FAB and 15 studies at verifying that the FAB was an appropriate tool for the differential diagnosis in neurological diseases. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the FAB may be an adequate assessment tool for executive function and may provide useful information for differential diagnosis in several diseases. Given that the FAB takes short time and is easy to administer, its usage may be of great interest as part of a full neuropsychological assessment in clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: The frontal assessment battery (FAB) is a brief tool designed to evaluate executive function. Some studies have particularly focused on assessing its applicability addressing two issues: first, on detecting the brain regions responsible for the FAB performance, and second, on determining its capability for differential diagnosis. Our aim was to summarize and analyze critically the studies that assessed the neuroanatomical correspondence and the differential diagnostic value of the FAB in several study populations suffering from different pathologies. METHODS: We completed a literature search in MEDLINE (via PubMed) database by using the term "frontal assessment battery" and the combination of this term with "applicability" or "use" or "usefulness". The search was limited to articles in English or Spanish languages, published between 1 September 2000 and 30 September 2016, human studies, and journal articles. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies were aimed at identifying the brain regions or the neural substrates involved in executive functions measured by the FAB and 15 studies at verifying that the FAB was an appropriate tool for the differential diagnosis in neurological diseases. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the FAB may be an adequate assessment tool for executive function and may provide useful information for differential diagnosis in several diseases. Given that the FAB takes short time and is easy to administer, its usage may be of great interest as part of a full neuropsychological assessment in clinical settings.
Authors: E Merlini; F Iannuzzi; A Calcagno; F Bai; M Trunfio; A d'Arminio Monforte; S Bonora; Giulia Marchetti Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: Helena S Moreira; Ana S Costa; São L Castro; César F Lima; Selene G Vicente Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Alexander G Murley; Kamen A Tsvetanov; Matthew A Rouse; P Simon Jones; Katrine Sværke; Win Li; Adrian Carpenter; James B Rowe Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Miriam Hurtado-Pomares; María Carmen Terol-Cantero; Alicia Sánchez-Pérez; Carlos Leiva-Santana; Paula Peral-Gómez; Desirée Valera-Gran; Eva María Navarrete-Muñoz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 3.240