Prevalence of motoric cognitive risk syndrome among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) is a newly proposed pre-dementia syndrome. Several studies on the prevalence of MCR have been published; however, the data vary across studies with different epidemiological characteristics. Thus, this study aimed to quantitatively analyse the overall prevalence and associated epidemiological characteristics of MCR among older adults aged ≥ 60 years.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Weipu Database, China Biology Medicine disc and Wanfang Database were searched from their inception to January 2022. A modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale evaluated the risk of bias. Statistical heterogeneity among the included studies was analysed using Cochran’s Q and I² tests. A random effect model calculated pooled prevalence owing to study heterogeneity. Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used to assess the publication bias. Additionally, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed based on different epidemiological characteristics to determine heterogeneity sources.

Results

Sixty-two studies comprising 187,558 samples were obtained. The pooled MCR prevalence was 9.0% (95% confidence interval: 8.3–9.8). A higher MCR prevalence was observed in females, older adults with a low educational level, depression and cardiovascular risk factors, South American populations, and studies with small sample sizes and cross-section designs. Furthermore, subjective cognitive complaint using scale score and gait speed using instrument gait showed higher MCR prevalence.

Conclusion

MCR is common in older adults, and various epidemiological characteristics influence its prevalence. Thus, preventive measures are required for older adults with higher MCR prevalence.

Keywords:

• Older adults
• motoric cognitive risk syndrome
• prevalence
• systematic review
• meta-analysis

Acknowledgement

None.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not applicable for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author contributions

Study concept and design: ZFW, XGZ. Literature Retrieval: ZFW, HYW and SHP. Study selection: ZFW, SHP and LPY. Data extraction: ZFW, QL, and SHP. Quality assessment: ZFW, LPY and HYW. Data analysis: ZFW, SHP. Draft and revise manuscripts: ZFW, JLW and XGZ

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

As this study is a meta-analysis of previous data, no new data were generated in support of this research.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC2002400); Innovative Research Project Plan for Medical Youth in Sichuan of China (Q20022), and Special Research Projects of Science and Technology of Sichuan Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China (2021MS095).