Studies have reported associations between serum anticholinergic activity (SAA) and decline in cognitive performance, delirium, and functional impairment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore and quantify associations between SAA and adverse cognitive and functional outcomes in older people.
A literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and IPA from 1946-2014 was completed. The primary outcomes of interest were cognitive and functional adverse outcomes associated with SAA in older people aged 55 years and above. The Cochrane Risk-Bias assessment tool was used to assess bias in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of non-RCTs. Meta-analyses were conducted for RCTs and cohort studies separately. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 tests.
The primary electronic literature search identified a total of 1559 records in the 4 different databases. On the basis of full-text analysis, 33 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The review included 4 RCTs, 5 prospective cohort studies, 3 longitudinal cohort studies, 17 cross-sectional studies, and 4 case-control studies. Twenty-four of the retrieved studies examined an association between SAA and cognitive outcomes, 2 studies examined an association with SAA and functional outcomes and 8 studies examined associations between SAA and both cognitive, and functional outcomes. The meta-analysis on 4 RCTs showed no association with higher SAA and cognitive performance (I2 = 89.38%, H2 = 25.53 and p-value = <0.05) however, the pooled data from 4 observational studies showed elevated SAA was associated with reduced cognitive performance (I2 = 0.00%, H2 = 3.37 and p-value = 0.34).
This systematic review summarises the limitations of the SAA on predicting cognitive and functional outcomes in older people. SAA measured by receptor bioassay is flawed and its use in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy is questionable.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
11
10%
Psychology
8
7%
Nursing and Health Professions
7
6%
Social Sciences
4
4%
Other
13
12%
Unknown
34
31%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,401,395
of 31,983,049 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#36,056
of 214,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,669
of 326,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#925
of 5,409 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,983,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,409 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
