↓ Skip to main content

Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
412 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
475 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13195-015-0099-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Jekel, Marinella Damian, Carina Wattmo, Lucrezia Hausner, Roger Bullock, Peter J Connelly, Bruno Dubois, Maria Eriksdotter, Michael Ewers, Elmar Graessel, Milica G Kramberger, Emma Law, Patrizia Mecocci, José L Molinuevo, Louise Nygård, Marcel GM Olde-Rikkert, Jean-Marc Orgogozo, Florence Pasquier, Karine Peres, Eric Salmon, Sietske AM Sikkes, Tomasz Sobow, René Spiegel, Magda Tsolaki, Bengt Winblad, Lutz Frölich

Abstract

There is a growing body of evidence that subtle deficits in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) may be present in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, it is not clear if there are IADL domains that are consistently affected across patients with MCI. In this systematic review, therefore, we aimed to summarize research results regarding the performance of MCI patients in specific IADL (sub)domains compared with persons who are cognitively normal and/or patients with dementia. The databases PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature in December 2013. Publications from 1999 onward were considered for inclusion. Altogether, 497 articles were retrieved. Reference lists of selected articles were searched for potentially relevant articles. After screening the abstracts of these 497 articles, 37 articles were included in this review. In 35 studies, IADL deficits (such as problems with medication intake, telephone use, keeping appointments, finding things at home and using everyday technology) were documented in patients with MCI. Financial capacity in patients with MCI was affected in the majority of studies. Effect sizes for group differences between patients with MCI and healthy controls were predominantly moderate to large. Performance-based instruments showed slight advantages (in terms of effect sizes) in detecting group differences in IADL functioning between patients with MCI, patients with Alzheimer's disease and healthy controls. IADL requiring higher neuropsychological functioning seem to be most severely affected in patients with MCI. A reliable identification of such deficits is necessary, as patients with MCI with IADL deficits seem to have a higher risk of converting to dementia than patients with MCI without IADL deficits. The use of assessment tools specifically designed and validated for patients with MCI is therefore strongly recommended. Furthermore, the development of performance-based assessment instruments should be intensified, as they allow a valid and reliable assessment of subtle IADL deficits in MCI, even if a proxy is not available. Another important point to consider when designing new scales is the inclusion of technology-associated IADL. Novel instruments for clinical practice should be time-efficient and easy to administer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 475 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 467 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 19%
Student > Master 60 13%
Researcher 57 12%
Student > Bachelor 39 8%
Other 25 5%
Other 97 20%
Unknown 107 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 76 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 72 15%
Neuroscience 47 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 9%
Computer Science 17 4%
Other 86 18%
Unknown 135 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 14 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,552,028
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#228
of 1,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,204
of 293,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 293,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.