Dataset Information

Measuring Resilience and Resistance in Aging and Alzheimer Disease Using Residual Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

There is a lack of consensus on how to optimally define and measure resistance and resilience in brain and cognitive aging. Residual methods use residuals from regression analysis to quantify the capacity to avoid (resistance) or cope (resilience) "better or worse than expected" given a certain level of risk or cerebral damage. We reviewed the rapidly growing literature on residual methods in the context of aging and Alzheimer disease (AD) and performed meta-analyses to investigate associations of residual method-based resilience and resistance measures with longitudinal cognitive and clinical outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science databases (consulted until March 2020) and subsequent screening led to 54 studies fulfilling eligibility criteria, including 10 studies suitable for the meta-analyses.

Results

We identified articles using residual methods aimed at quantifying resistance (n = 33), cognitive resilience (n = 23), and brain resilience (n = 2). Critical examination of the literature revealed that there is considerable methodologic variability in how the residual measures were derived and validated. Despite methodologic differences across studies, meta-analytic assessments showed significant associations of levels of resistance (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)] 1.12 [1.07-1.17]; p < 0.0001) and levels of resilience (HR [95% CI] 0.46 [0.32-0.68]; p < 0.001) with risk of progression to dementia/AD. Resilience was also associated with rate of cognitive decline (β [95% CI] 0.05 [0.01-0.08]; p < 0.01).

Discussion

This review and meta-analysis supports the usefulness of residual methods as appropriate measures of resilience and resistance, as they capture clinically meaningful information in aging and AD. More rigorous methodologic standardization is needed to increase comparability across studies and, ultimately, application in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Bocancea DI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA major barrier to safety improvement in primary care is a lack of safety data. The aims of this systematic meta-review (registration: CRD42021224367) were to identify systematic reviews of studies that examine methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care; classify the methods of measuring and monitoring safety in the included systematic reviews using the five safety domains of Vincent et al.'s framework and use this information to make recommendations for improving the measurement and monitoring of safety in primary care.MethodsFour databases (Medline, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science and CINAHL) and the grey literature were screened in November 2020, with searches updated in January 2021. Systematic reviews were included if they addressed the measurement of patient safety in primary care and were published in English. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews.ResultsA total of 6904 papers were screened, with 13 systematic reviews included. A commonly reported method of measuring 'past harm' was through patient record review. The most frequent methods for assessing the 'reliability of safety critical processes' were checklists, observations and surveys of staff. Methods used to assess 'sensitivity to operations' included observation, staff surveys, interviews, focus groups, active monitoring and simulated patients. Safety climate surveys were a commonly used as an approach to assess 'anticipation and preparedness'. A number of the reviews concluded that safety data could, and should, be used for 'integration and learning'. The main limitation of the meta-review was that it was of systematic reviews only.ConclusionsMany of the methods for measuring and monitoring safety are readily available, quick to administer, do not require external involvement and are inexpensive. However, there is still a need to improve the psychometric properties of many measures. Researchers must support the development of psychometrically sound safety measures that do not over burden primary care practitioners. Policymakers must consider how primary care practitioners can be supported to implement these measures.