Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28112769›Full record

ReviewThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2017

Assessing the Current State of Cognitive Frailty: Measurement Properties.

L Sargent, R Brown

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L SargentL. Sargent, Candidate at Medical University of South Carolina, Faculty of Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Nursing, Richmond, VA, USA, lsargent@vcu.edu.
R Brown

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, an estimated 25-30% of people ages 85 or older have dementia, with a projected 115 million people worldwide living with dementia by 2050. With this worldwide phenomenon fast approaching, early detection of at-risk older adults and development of interventions focused on preventing loss in quality of life are increasingly important. A new construct defined by the International Consensus Group (I.A.N.A/I.A.G.G) as «cognitive frailty» combines domains of physical frailty with cognitive impairment and provides a framework for research that may provide a means to identify individuals with cognitive impairment caused by nonneurodegenerative conditions. Using the integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl., 2005 this study examines and appraises the optimal measures for detecting cognitive frailty in clinical populations of older adults.

methodsThe integrative review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. From the total 185 articles retrieved, review of titles and key words were conducted. Following the initial review, 168 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria for association of frailty and cognition. Of the 18 fulltext articles reviewed, 11 articles met the inclusion criteria; these articles were reviewed in-depth to determine validity and reliability of the cognitive frailty measures.

resultsPredictive validity was established by the studies reviewed in four main areas: frailty and type of dementia MCI (OR 7.4, 95% CI 4.2-13.2), vascular dementia (OR 6.7, 95% CI 1.6-27.4) and Alzheimer's dementia (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.2), frailty and vascular dementia (VaAD) is further supported by the rate of change in frailty x macroinfarcts (r = 0.032, p < 0.001); frailty and the individual domains of cognitive function established with the relationship of neurocognitive speed and change in cognition using regression coefficients; individual components of frailty and individual domains of cognitive function associations inculded slow gait and executive function (β -0.20, p < 0.008 ), attention (β -0.25 p < 0.008), processing speed (β -0.16, p < 0.008), word recall (β - 0.18, p = 0.02), and logical memory (β = 0.04, p =0.04). Weak grip was predictive for changes in executive function (β - 0.16, p =0.008). Physical activity was associated with changes in executive function (β = -0.18, p= 0.02) and word recall (β = 0.17, p= 0.02), individual components of frailty and global cognitive function were found in several studies which included grip strength (r = - 0.51, p < 0.001), gait speed (r = - 0.067, p < 0.001), and exhaustion (β - 0.18, p < 0.008).

conclusionsThis paper presents the first-known review of the measurement properties for the cognitive frailty construct since the published results from the International Consensus Group (I.A.N.A/I.A.G.G). Evidence presented in this review continues to support the link between physical frailty and cognition with developing validity to support distinct relationships between components of physical frailty and cognitive decline. Results call attention to inconsistencies in reporting of reliability, validity, and heterogeneity in the measurements and operational definition for cognitive frailty. Further research is needed to establish an operational definition and develop psychometrically appropriate clinical measures to construct an understanding of the relationship between physical frailty and cognitive decline.

Indexed as

CognitionFrail ElderlyAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseCognition DisordersDementia, VascularExerciseHumansMemoryQuality of LifeReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28112769
PMCPMC12879857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.