Table 2 Summary of included Cohort studies which compared Instrumented Objective Functional Parameters between Confirmed MCI and a Control Group
Study (first author and year) | Study Design | Study Characteristics (groups, number of participants, mean age) | MCI Diagnostic Criteria | Instrumented Functional Assessment | Instrument | Data Collection (follow-up) | Main results in MCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gillain et al. [63], 2015. | Pilot Cohort Study. | - MCI +: n = 9. 74.44 years old. - MCI -: n = 4. 70.00 years old. | Petersen Criteria [15]. CDR = 0.5 [46]. MMSE > 24 [49]. | Walking at preferred speed (40 m) in ST and DT conditions. | Tri-axial accelerometric (Locometrix®) attached to the L3. | (T1) at baseline; (T2) one year; (T3) four years. | ↑Gait speed in ST and in DT in MCI- than in MCI+ **. ↑Symmetry in DT in MCI- than in MCI+ **. ↓Gait performances in DT compared to ST. |
Hayes et al. [64], 2008. | Transversal and longitudinal study (paired comparison and repeated measure ANOVA) | - Healthy Group: n = 7. 90 years old. - MCI: n = 7. 88.44 years old. | All: MMSE ≥24 [49]. Control: CDR = 0 [46]. MCI: CDR = 0.5 [46]. | Activity in the home, amount of variance in activity, tracking visitors, absences from the home, and walking speed. | Motion sensors and magnetic contact sensors placed in home, and wireless contact switches. | (T1) mean of 315 days. | ↑COV in the median gait speed in MCI compared with Healthy group **. ↑24-h wavelet variance in MCI Group than Healthy Group (↑variance in the day-to-day pattern of activity)**. |
Ansai et al. [65]. 2018. | Longitudinal prospective study. | - AD: n = 37. 78.5 years old. - MCI: n = 38. 74.75 years old. | MCI Group: CDR = 0.5 [46]. MMSE > 24 [49]. Pfeffer [66]. | TUG | Qualisys ProReflex motion analysis system with seven cameras. | (T1) at baseline; (T2) six months. | ↓Total time to perform the TUG in MCI vs AD**. ↑ Gait speed in the walking forward subtask in MCI vs AD**. ↓ Time in the turn subtask in MCI vs AD**. ↑ Gait speed in the walking back subtask in MCI vs AD**. ↓ Time in the turn-to-sit subtask in MCI vs AD**. |
Dodge et al. [67], 2012. | Longitudinal (Latent trajectory model). Part of cohort study. | - aMCI: n = 8. 84,5 years old. - naMCI: n = 31. 83.8 years old. - Healthy Group: n = 54. 84.9 years old. | ALL: CDR ≤ 0.5 [46]. MMSE > 24 [49]. MCI: Petersen Criteria [11]. | Walking speed and its variability; total daily activity, visitors and time out of home. | Motion sensors and contact sensors fixed in the homes, and wireless contact switches. | (T1) at baseline; (T2) mean of 2.6 ± 1.0 years. | Slow gait speed in naMCI**. ↑or↓ baseline COV of gait speed groups in naMCI. ↓Gait speed in MCI than in Healthy Group**. ↑COV of gait speed in MCI than in Healthy Group**. |
Pieruccini- Faria et al. [68], 2018. | Part of a prospective cohort study. | - MCI: n = 52. 73.7 years old. - Healthy Group: n = 27. 71.7 years old. | Control: - CDR = 0 [46]. - MoCA ≥27 [47]. MCI: - CDR = 0.5 [46]. - MoCA < 26 [47]. | Walking speed in ST and DT conditions. | Electronic walkway (lenght: 6 m) embedded with sensors. | (T1) at baseline; (T2) two years; (T3) four years; (T4) five years. | ↓ Gait speed in DT conditions in MCI**. ↓Step length adjustments in DT conditions in MCI**. ↓ Gait speed in MCI**. |
Montero-Odasso et al. [69], 2009. | Reliability study. | - MCI: n = 11. 76.6 years old. | Petersen Criteria [14]. CDR = 0.5 [46]. MoCA < 26 [47]. MMSE > 24 [49]. | Gait performance under ST and DT conditions. | Electronic walkway (GAITRite® System. Lenght: 6 m). | (T1) at baseline; (T2) one week. | ↓Mean gait speed under DT conditions**. ↑Gait variability on stride time, step time, and double support time under DT conditions**. |