Home › Research › Clinical safety
Consensus on Shared Measures of Mobility and Cognition: From the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA)
Montero-Odasso M, Almeida QJ, Bherer L, Burhan AM, Camicioli R, Doyon J, Fraser S, Muir-Hunter S et al.. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2019-05-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background A new paradigm is emerging in which mobility and cognitive impairments, previously studied, diagnosed, and managed separately in older adults, are in fact regulated by shared brain resources. Deterioration in these shared brain mechanisms by normal aging and neurodegeneration increases the risk of developing dementia, falls, and fractures. This new paradigm requires an integrated approach to measuring both domains. We aim to identify a complementary battery of existing tests of mobility and cognition in community-dwelling older adults that enable assessment of motor-cognitive interactions. Methods Experts on mobility and cognition in aging participated in a semistructured consensus based on the Delphi process. After performing a scoping review to select candidate tests, multiple rounds of consultations provided structured feedback on tests that captured shared characteristics of mobility and cognition. These tests needed to be sensitive to changes in both mobility and cognition, applicable across research studies and clinics, sensitive to interventions, feasible to perform in older adults, been previously validated, and have minimal ceiling/floor effects. Results From 17 tests appraised, 10 tests fulfilled prespecified criteria and were selected as part of the "Core-battery" of tests. The expert panel also recommended a "Minimum-battery" of tests that included gait speed, dual-task gait speed, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Trail Making Test A&B. Conclusions A standardized assessment battery that captures shared characteristics of mobility and cognition seen in aging and neurodegeneration may increase comparability across research studies, detection of subtle or common reversible factors, and accelerate research progress in dementia, falls, and aging-related disabilities.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Montero-Odasso, M., Almeida, Q. J., Bherer, L., Burhan, A. M., Camicioli, R., Doyon, J., et al. (2019). Consensus on Shared Measures of Mobility and Cognition: From the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA). The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gly148
Vancouver
Montero-Odasso M, Almeida QJ, Bherer L, Burhan AM, Camicioli R, Doyon J, et al. Consensus on Shared Measures of Mobility and Cognition: From the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA). The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2019. doi:10.1093/gerona/gly148. PMID: 30101279.
BibTeX
@article{monteroodasso2019-30101279,
author = {Montero-Odasso, M. and Almeida, Q. J. and Bherer, L. and Burhan, A. M. and Camicioli, R. and Doyon, J. and Fraser, S. and Muir-Hunter, S. and others},
title = {{Consensus on Shared Measures of Mobility and Cognition: From the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA)}},
journal = {The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1093/gerona/gly148},
pmid = {30101279},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gly148}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results From 17 tests appraised, 10 tests fulfilled prespecified criteria and were selected as part of the "Core-battery" of tests.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30101279) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also tagged “cognitive-function”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.