Home › Research › Clinical safety
Different cognitive profiles for single compared with recurrent fallers without dementia
Anstey KJ, Wood J, Kerr G, Caldwell H, Lord SR.. Neuropsychology, 2009-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Relationships between self-reported retrospective falls and cognitive measures (executive function, reaction time [RT], processing speed, working memory, visual attention) were examined in a population based sample of older adults (n = 658). Two of the choice RT tests involved inhibiting responses to either targets of a specific color or location with hand and foot responses. Potentially confounding demographic variables, medical conditions, and postural sway were controlled for in logistic regression models, excluding participants with possible cognitive impairment. A factor analysis of cognitive measures extracted factors measuring RT, accuracy and inhibition, and visual search. Single fallers did not differ from nonfallers in terms of health, sway or cognitive function, except that they performed worse on accuracy and inhibition. In contrast, recurrent fallers performed worse than nonfallers on all measures. Results suggest that occasional falls in late life may be associated with subtle age-related changes in the prefrontal cortex leading to failures of executive control, whereas recurrent falling may result from more advanced brain ageing that is associated with generalized cognitive decline.
Key findings
- Results suggest that occasional falls in late life may be associated with subtle age-related changes in the prefrontal cortex leading to failures of executive control, whereas recurrent falling may result from more advanced brain ageing that is associated with generalized cognitive decline.
Study details
- Participants658
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychology) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 658 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 19586213) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Anstey, K. J., Wood, J., Kerr, G., Caldwell, H., & Lord, SR. (2009). Different cognitive profiles for single compared with recurrent fallers without dementia. Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015389
Vancouver
Anstey KJ, Wood J, Kerr G, Caldwell H, Lord SR. Different cognitive profiles for single compared with recurrent fallers without dementia. Neuropsychology. 2009. doi:10.1037/a0015389. PMID: 19586213.
BibTeX
@article{anstey2009-19586213,
author = {Anstey, K. J. and Wood, J. and Kerr, G. and Caldwell, H. and Lord, SR.},
title = {{Different cognitive profiles for single compared with recurrent fallers without dementia}},
journal = {Neuropsychology},
year = {2009},
doi = {10.1037/a0015389},
pmid = {19586213},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015389}
}