For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
7
views
55
references
 Top references
cited by
13
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      171
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mechanisms of motoric cognitive risk—Hypotheses based on a systematic review and meta‐analysis of longitudinal cohort studies of older adults

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          We aimed to refine the hypothesis that motoric cognitive risk (MCR), a syndrome combining measured slow gait speed and self‐reported cognitive complaints, is prognostic of incident dementia and other major causes of morbidity in older age. We propose mechanisms on the relationship between motor and cognitive function and describe a roadmap to validate these hypotheses. We systematically searched major electronic databases from inception to August 2021 for original longitudinal cohort studies of adults aged ≥60 years that compared an MCR group to a non‐MCR group with any health outcome. Fifteen cohorts were combined by meta‐analysis. Participants with MCR were at an increased risk of cognitive impairment (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.49–2.08; I 2 = 24.9%), dementia (aHR 2.12, 1.85–2.42; 33.1%), falls (adjusted Relative Risk 1.38, 1.15–1.66; 62.1%), and mortality (aHR 1.49, 1.16–1.91; 79.2%). The prognostic value of MCR is considerable and mechanisms underlying the syndrome are proposed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)
          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 14113 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Conducting Meta-Analyses inRwith themetaforPackage

            Wolfgang Viechtbauer (2010)
            Article 0 comments Cited 3027 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              D F Stroup, J A Berlin, S C Morton … (2000)
              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Article 0 comments Cited 2311 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Donncha S. Mullin:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1679-8067
                D.Mullin@ed.ac.uk
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Alzheimers Dement
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Alzheimers Dement
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1002/(ISSN)1552-5279
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ALZ
                Title: Alzheimer's & Dementia
                Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                ISSN (Print): 1552-5260
                ISSN (Electronic): 1552-5279
                Publication date (Electronic): 09 February 2022
                Publication date (Print): December 2022
                Volume: 18
                Issue: 12 ( doiID: 10.1002/alz.v18.12 )
                Pages: 2413-2427
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                [ 2 ] Edinburgh Dementia Prevention Group University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                [ 3 ] Division of Psychiatry Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                [ 4 ] NHS Lothian Royal Edinburgh Hospital Edinburgh UK
                [ 5 ] Lothian Birth Cohorts Department of Psychology University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Donncha S. Mullin, Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Kennedy Towe,, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Morningside Terrace, Edinburgh, EH10 5HF, UK.

                Email: D.Mullin@ 123456ed.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1679-8067
                Article
                Publisher ID: ALZ12547
                DOI: 10.1002/alz.12547
                PMC ID: 10078717
                PubMed ID: 35142038
                SO-VID: 9a344e97-2f9a-4a3b-a735-d2aff0b20ddd
                Copyright © © 2021 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association
                License:

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                Date revision received : 25 October 2021
                Date received : 22 September 2021
                Date accepted : 25 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Pages: 15, Words: 8741
                Categories
                Subject: Featured Article
                Subject: Featured Articles
                Custom metadata
                source-schema-version-number 2.0
                cover-date December 2022
                details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.7 mode:remove_FC converted:06.04.2023

                Keywords: dementia,falls,gait,mechanism,meta‐analysis,mortality,motoric cognitive risk,pathophysiology,prevention,prognostic,review,subjective cognitive complaint
                Data availability:
                Keywords: dementia, falls, gait, mechanism, meta‐analysis, mortality, motoric cognitive risk, pathophysiology, prevention, prognostic, review, subjective cognitive complaint

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content171

                See all similar

                Cited by13

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,570

                See all reference authors