Sensitivity of dual-task motor performance to varying levels of cognitive impairment: a systematic review and quality assessment

Dementia is one of the key public challenges of this century, with the number of persons with dementia worldwide projected to reach 115 million by 2050. This review aimed to answer whether monitoring of motor performance alone and during a cognitively taxing task (dual-task) is sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between levels of cognitive function (normal function, mild cognitive impairment, dementia) and, thus, appropriate for dementia screening. In the reviewed 15 studies, cognitively healthy controls had a higher dual-task gait speed than persons with impaired cognition (9/12 studies). The difference between dual- and single-task gait speeds (dual-task cost) was lower in healthy controls (7/8 studies). Such differences were not detected between patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. These results suggest that monitoring of dual-task performance may be used in early dementia screening. Diversity in research designs, lack of established statistical and reporting standards prevent meta-analysis of data. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes No data are available. This is a systematic literature review.