Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background The Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome (MCR) is characterized by slow gait speed and cognitive complaints. Objectives The objective of this study was to determine if the presence of MCR increases the risk of falls in older people. Methods Individual participant data (n = 6,204) from five longitudinal studies from three countries were used for this analysis. MCR diagnosis was defined as both the presence of objectively measured slow gait speed and subjective cognitive complaints in those without dementia or mobility disability. Falls were prospectively ascertained using phone calls or questionnaires. Log binomial regression was performed to determine if MCR increased the risk of falls separately in each cohort. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool results from all cohorts. Results The mean age of participants was 74.9 (SD 6.8) years and 44% (n = 2728) were male. Overall 33.9% (n = 2104) reported a fall over follow-up. Pooled relative risk of MCR with any falls was RR 1.44 95% CI 1.16, 1.79. The components of MCR, slow gait (RR 1.30 95% CI 1.14, 1.47) and cognitive complaint (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07, 1.46) were also associated with an increased risk of any falls. In sub-analyses MCR was associated with any fall independent of previous falls (RR 1.29 95% CI 1.09, 1.53) and with multiple falls (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.25, 2.51). Conclusion MCR is associated with an increased risk of falls. The increase in risk was higher than for its individual components. The simplicity of the MCR makes it an attractive falls risk screening tool for the clinic.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 79/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 48 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 79 of 100. Total 79 of 100.48 of the 61 points we could judge = 79 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 48 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
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 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 6,204 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27340851)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 48 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total 79 / 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. 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.

APA 7th

Callisaya, M. L., Ayers, E., Barzilai, N., Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J. M., Lipton, R. B., et al. (2016). Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome and Falls Risk: A Multi-Center Study. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160230

Vancouver

Callisaya ML, Ayers E, Barzilai N, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Lipton RB, et al. Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome and Falls Risk: A Multi-Center Study. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2016. doi:10.3233/jad-160230. PMID: 27340851.

BibTeX

@article{callisaya2016-27340851,
  author  = {Callisaya, M. L. and Ayers, E. and Barzilai, N. and Ferrucci, L. and Guralnik, J. M. and Lipton, R. B. and Otahal, P. and Srikanth, V. K. and others},
  title   = {{Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome and Falls Risk: A Multi-Center Study}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-160230},
  pmid    = {27340851},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160230}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →