SynthesisNeuropsychology review2024
Instruments to Assess Cognitive Reserve Among Older Adults: a Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between trait curiosity and cognitive reserve in younger and older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Adult ADHD as a risk factor for dementia: integrating longitudinal evidence, mechanistic insights, and the role of stimulant treatment.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Review
- Promoting Geropsychology: A Memorandum for Research, Policies, Education Programs, and Practices for Healthy Aging.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive reserve explains the differences in the susceptibility to cognitive impairment related to brain aging, pathology, or insult. Given that cognitive reserve has important implications for the cognitive health of typically and pathologically aging older adults, research needs to identify valid and reliable instruments for measuring cognitive reserve. However, the measurement properties of current cognitive reserve instruments used in older adults have not been evaluated according to the most up-to-date COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). This systematic review aimed to critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of all existing cognitive reserve instruments for older adults. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies published up to December 2021, which was conducted by three of four researchers using 13 electronic databases and snowballing method. The COSMIN was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies and the quality of measurement properties. Out of the 11,338 retrieved studies, only seven studies that concerned five instruments were eventually included. The methodological quality of one-fourth of the included studies was doubtful and three-seventh was very good, while only four measurement properties from two instruments were supported by high-quality evidence. Overall, current studies and evidence for selecting cognitive reserve instruments suitable for older adults were insufficient. All included instruments have the potential to be recommended, while none of the identified cognitive reserve instruments for older adults appears to be generally superior to the others. Therefore, further studies are recommended to validate the measurement properties of existing cognitive reserve instruments for older adults, especially the content validity as guided by COSMIN.Systematic Review Registration numbers: CRD42022309399 (PROSPERO).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.