Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31390344›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Measuring Cognitive Reserve (CR) - A systematic review of measurement properties of CR questionnaires for the adult population.

Nadja Kartschmit, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Torsten Schubert, Maria Elena Lacruz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Cognitive reserve modulates mental health in adulthood.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Nadja KartschmitInstitute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics, and Informatics (IMEBI), Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Rafael MikolajczykInstitute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics, and Informatics (IMEBI), Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Torsten SchubertDepartment of Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Maria Elena LacruzInstitute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics, and Informatics (IMEBI), Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2036-3039

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise the quality of published literature on measurement properties of questionnaires assessing Cognitive Reserve (CR) in adults (>18 years).

methodsWe systematically searched for published studies on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through August 2018. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and the results on measurement properties based on a consensus-based standard checklist.

resultsThe search strategy identified 991 publications, of which 37 were selected evaluating the measurement properties of six different questionnaires. Construct validity of the Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire was most extensively evaluated, while evaluation of the remaining measurement properties of this questionnaire was scarce. Measurement properties of the Cognitive Reserve Questionnaire and the Cognitive Reserve Scale were assessed more completely. While the Lifetime of Experience Questionnaire seems to be the most thorough instrument, a finale recommendation for one specific questionnaire cannot be drawn, since about half of the measurement properties for each questionnaire were poorly or not assessed at all.

conclusionsThere is a need of high quality methodological studies assessing measurement properties of CR questionnaires, especially regarding content validity, structural validity, and responsiveness.

trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number CRD42018107766.

Indexed as

Cognitive ReserveSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultHealthy VolunteersHumans

Identifiers

PMID31390344
PMCPMC6685632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.