SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Criminal minds in dementia: A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis.

Transl Psychiatry · 2025-08-28

DOI: 10.1038/s41398-025-03523-zPMID: 40877225

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

IntroductionSubjects with dementia might exhibit criminal risk behavior (CB), even in early disease stages.MethodsThis systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis investigated CB prevalence across all neurodegenerative syndromes according to PRISMA criteria and preregistered in PROSPERO. Mean frequencies and odds ratios were calculated and compared.ResultsFinally, the meta-analysis included 14 studies with 236,360 persons. Studies originated from different countries, with largest contributing country being the U.S.A., followed by Scandinavian countries, i.e., Sweden and Finland, and additionally Germany and Japan. All quantitative analyses revealed a very consistent picture: CB prevalence was highest in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia ( >50%), followed by semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (40%), but rather low in vascular dementia and Huntington's disease (15%), Alzheimer's disease (10%), lowest in Parkinsonian syndromes ( DiscussionCB is a common symptom in dementia, most pronounced in frontotemporal dementia. CB committed for the first time at mid-age could be an indicator of incident dementia, requiring earliest diagnosis and therapy. As present studies show a wide variability in assessment methods and cohorts investigated, and had been conducted in a minority of countries world-wide, large prospective international studies are warranted that systematically apply homogeneous methods and standardized questionnaires in assessing criminal risk behavior in different dementia syndromes.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.