820
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
REVIEW ARTICLES

Measures of cognitive reserve: An umbrella review

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, &
Pages 42-115 | Received 31 Oct 2022, Accepted 04 Apr 2023, Published online: 18 Apr 2023
 

Abstract

Objective: Recently, there has been a growing interest in operationalizing and measuring cognitive reserve (CR) for clinical and research purposes. This umbrella review aims to summarize the existing systematic and meta-analytic reviews about measures of CR. Method: A literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the guidelines of Aromataris et al. (Citation2015) to identify the systematic reviews and meta-analysis involving the assessment of CR. The methodological quality of the papers included in this umbrella review was assessed with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE). Results: Thirty-one reviews were identified, sixteen of which were systematic reviews, and fifteen were meta-analyses. Most of the reviews had a critically low quality, according to AMSTAR-2. The reviews included between two and 135 studies. Most of the papers focused on older adults, mainly those with dementia. CR was measured using one to six proxies, but most considered each proxy separately. The most assessed proxies of CR were education on its own, combined with occupation and/or engagement in activities or combined with parental education, bilingualism, and engagement in activities when four CR proxies were studied. Most of the studies included in higher quality reviews focused on three proxies, with education and engagement in activities being the most evaluated using CR questionnaires. Conclusion: Despite the growing interest in measuring CR, its operationalization did not improve since the last umbrella review in this field.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Joana Filipa Freire Teixeira de Oliveira Pinto, Bruno Miguel Raposo Távora de Barros Peixoto, Artemisa Agostinha da Rocha Dores, and Fernando Manuel dos Santos Barbosa performed material preparation, data collection, and analysis. Joana Filipa Freire Teixeira de Oliveira Pinto wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on previous versions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosure statement

The other authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Additional information

Funding

Artemisa Dores is a researcher of School of Health, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal, supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia [Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology] through R&D Units funding (UIDB/05210/2020).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.