Home › Research › Prevention trials
Interventions to Improve Gait in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review
Zhang W, Low LF, Gwynn JD, Clemson L.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2018-12-02
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To review intervention programs that measure gait to investigate what features of the intervention may contribute to improving gait in older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia. Design Systematic review using Medline, Cinahl, Scopus, PsychInfo, Amed, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed for original research published in English between January 1, 2000, and July 23, 2018, to identify interventional controlled trials. Narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results Of 6,379 citations, 36 articles met inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as medication or medical devices (8 studies), exercise (19 studies), and exercise plus cognitive training (9 studies). Antidementia medication may improve gait variability in people with Alzheimer's disease. Exercise programs focusing on strength and balance training, especially when combined with functional mobility training, improve gait in people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Exercise plus cognitive training programs combining strength and balance training, functional mobility training, and training on attention and executive function also improve gait. Conlusion Physical and cognitive factors affect gait performance, and both should be addressed in intervention programs. Physical exercises including functional mobility training, especially walking, have better results than physical programs with only static, resistance, and flexibility training. Cognitive intervention should be concomitant with physical exercises rather than separate, with a focus on attention and executive function. Combining physical training with cognitive training in a functional context may assist older adults with cognitive impairment generalize from training to everyday activity. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:381-391, 2019.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhang, W., Low, L. F., Gwynn, J. D., & Clemson, L. (2019). Interventions to Improve Gait in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15660
Vancouver
Zhang W, Low LF, Gwynn JD, Clemson L. Interventions to Improve Gait in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2019. doi:10.1111/jgs.15660. PMID: 30506754.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2019-30506754,
author = {Zhang, W. and Low, L. F. and Gwynn, J. D. and Clemson, L.},
title = {{Interventions to Improve Gait in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.15660},
pmid = {30506754},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15660}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Of 6,379 citations, 36 articles met inclusion criteria.
- Physical exercises including functional mobility training, especially walking, have better results than physical programs with only static, resistance, and flexibility training.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 30506754) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; 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.