16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The complex burden of determining prevalence rates of mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a syndrome characterized by a decline in cognitive performance greater than expected for an individual's age and education level, but that does not interfere much with daily life activities. Establishing the prevalence of MCI is very important for both clinical and research fields. In fact, in a certain percentage of cases, MCI represents a prodromal condition for the development of dementia. Accordingly, it is important to identify the characteristics of MCI that allow us to predict the development of dementia. Also, initial detection of cognitive decline can allow the early implementation of prevention programs aimed at counteracting or slowing it down. To this end, it is important to have a clear picture of the prevalence of MCI and, consequently, of the diagnostic criteria used. According to these issues, this systematic review aims to analyze MCI prevalence, exploring the methods for diagnosing MCI that determine its prevalence. The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Three thousand one hundred twenty-one international articles were screened, and sixty-six were retained. In these studies, which involved 157,035 subjects, the prevalence of MCI ranged from 1.2 to 87%. The review results showed a large heterogeneity among studies due to differences in the subjects' recruitment, the diagnostic criteria, the assessed cognitive domains, and other methodological aspects that account for a higher range of MCI prevalence. This large heterogeneity prevents drawing any firm conclusion about the prevalence of MCI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references117

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

            The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of developing criteria for the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to in this article as mild cognitive impairment due to AD. The workgroup developed the following two sets of criteria: (1) core clinical criteria that could be used by healthcare providers without access to advanced imaging techniques or cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and (2) research criteria that could be used in clinical research settings, including clinical trials. The second set of criteria incorporate the use of biomarkers based on imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measures. The final set of criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to AD has four levels of certainty, depending on the presence and nature of the biomarker findings. Considerable work is needed to validate the criteria that use biomarkers and to standardize biomarker analysis for use in community settings. Copyright © 2011 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules.

              J Morris (1993)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                23 September 2022
                2022
                : 13
                : 960648
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology and Health Studies, “Sapienza” University of Rome , Rome, Italy
                [2] 2Department of Psychology, “Sapienza” University of Rome , Rome, Italy
                [3] 3Body and Action Laboratory, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Santa Lucia Foundation , Rome, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Gianfranco Spalletta, Santa Lucia Foundation (IRCCS), Italy

                Reviewed by: Federica Piras, Santa Lucia Foundation (IRCCS), Italy; Johannes Pantel, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany

                *Correspondence: Giulia Marselli giulia.marselli@ 123456uniroma1.it

                This article was submitted to Aging Psychiatry, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2022.960648
                9537698
                36213927
                26c840be-2346-4718-b6eb-9d2fa7f003dd
                Copyright © 2022 Casagrande, Marselli, Agostini, Forte, Favieri and Guarino.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 03 June 2022
                : 18 August 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 6, Equations: 0, References: 117, Pages: 42, Words: 15795
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                mild cognitive impairment (mci),prevalence,epidemiology,systematic review,mci diagnostic criteria

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content197

                Cited by17

                Most referenced authors2,376