Home › Research › Digital health tools
Gait in ageing and associated dementias; its relationship with cognition
Scherder E, Eggermont L, Swaab D, van Heuvelen M, Kamsma Y, de Greef M, van Wijck R, Mulder T.. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2007-02-15
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The focus of this review is on the close relationship between gait and cognition in ageing and associated dementias. This close relationship is supported by epidemiological studies, clinical studies of older people with and without dementia that focused on the intensity of the physical activity, clinical studies with older persons without dementia examining a relationship between gait and specific cognitive processes, and human and animal experimental studies examining a neural basis for such a relationship. Despite these findings, most studies with patients with dementia focus exclusively on the relationship between cognition and dementia, with relatively few addressing the relationship between gait and dementia. However, subtle disturbances in gait can be observed in ageing and in (preclinical) subtypes of dementia that are not known for prominent motor disturbances, i.e. Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer's Disease, vascular Cognitive Impairment No Dementia, Subcortical Ischaemic Vascular Dementia, Frontotemporal Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Frontotemporal Dementia, supporting a close relationship between gait and cognition. The relationship between gait and cognition is weakened by the few available intervention studies that examine the effects of walking on cognition in patients with (preclinical) dementia. These studies report equivocal results, which will be discussed. Finally, suggestions for future research will be made.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Scherder, E., Eggermont, L., Swaab, D., van Heuvelen, M., Kamsma, Y., de Greef, M., et al. (2007). Gait in ageing and associated dementias; its relationship with cognition. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.11.007
Vancouver
Scherder E, Eggermont L, Swaab D, van Heuvelen M, Kamsma Y, de Greef M, et al. Gait in ageing and associated dementias; its relationship with cognition. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2007. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.11.007. PMID: 17306372.
BibTeX
@article{scherder2007-17306372,
author = {Scherder, E. and Eggermont, L. and Swaab, D. and van Heuvelen, M. and Kamsma, Y. and de Greef, M. and van Wijck, R. and Mulder, T.},
title = {{Gait in ageing and associated dementias; its relationship with cognition}},
journal = {Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.11.007},
pmid = {17306372},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.11.007}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Despite these findings, most studies with patients with dementia focus exclusively on the relationship between cognition and dementia, with relatively few addressing the relationship between gait and dementia.
- These studies report equivocal results, which will be discussed.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews) |
| 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 | 2007 — within 20 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 17306372) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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 Digital health tools
Also tagged “exercise-training”
125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.