Home › Research › Risk factors
Measures of cognitive reserve: An umbrella review
Joana O Pinto, Bruno Peixoto, Artemisa R Dores, Fernando Barbosa. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2023-04-18
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Thirty-one reviews were identified, sixteen of which were systematic reviews, and fifteen were meta-analyses. Most of the reviews had a critically low quality, according to AMSTAR-2. The reviews included between two and 135 studies. Most of the papers focused on older adults, mainly those with dementia. CR was measured using one to six proxies, but most considered each proxy separately. The most assessed proxies of CR were education on its own, combined with occupation and/or engagement in activities or combined with parental education, bilingualism, and engagement in activities when four CR proxies were studied. Most of the studies included in higher quality reviews focused on three proxies, with education and engagement in activities being the most evaluated using CR questionnaires. Despite the growing interest in measuring CR, its operationalization did not improve since the last umbrella review in this field.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Pinto, J. O., Peixoto, B., Dores, A. R., & Barbosa, F. (2024). Measures of cognitive reserve: An umbrella review. The Clinical neuropsychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2023.2200978
Vancouver
Pinto JO, Peixoto B, Dores AR, Barbosa F. Measures of cognitive reserve: An umbrella review. The Clinical neuropsychologist. 2024. doi:10.1080/13854046.2023.2200978. PMID: 37073431.
BibTeX
@article{pinto2024-37073431,
author = {Pinto, Joana O and Peixoto, Bruno and Dores, Artemisa R and Barbosa, Fernando},
title = {{Measures of cognitive reserve: An umbrella review}},
journal = {The Clinical neuropsychologist},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2023.2200978},
pmid = {37073431},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2023.2200978}
}
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
- Thirty-one reviews were identified, sixteen of which were systematic reviews, and fifteen were meta-analyses.
- Most of the reviews had a critically low quality, according to AMSTAR-2.
- The reviews included between two and 135 studies.
- Most of the papers focused on older adults, mainly those with dementia.
- CR was measured using one to six proxies, but most considered each proxy separately.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Clinical neuropsychologist) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37073431) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 40 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.