'We DECide' had a positive influence on advance care planning policy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This paper provides an overview of the evidence on the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs) in relation to advance care planning (ACP) for people with dementia, residing in long-term care settings. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
Providing palliative care for residents with dementia in long-term care (LTC) settings is problematic due to their declining verbal abilities and related challenges. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study consolidates evidence that commonly used signs and symptoms of dehydration lack even basic levels of diagnostic accuracy in older adults, implying that many who are dehydrated are not being identified, thus compromising their health and well-being. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning before an acute event is only the first step in a process of decision making. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The importance of better care integration is emphasized in many national dementia plans. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ABSTRACTBackground:Evidence concerning when and in which manner older people living in nursing homes (NHs) would prefer to discuss advance care planning (ACP) is still scarce. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article, the second of two, provides healthcare practitioners with an overview of best practice in palliative and end-of-life care, including nutrition, hydration, oral hygiene and pain management. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Since the Liverpool Care Pathway has been withdrawn in the UK, clinicians supporting the palliative needs of patients have faced further challenges, particularly for patients with dementia who are unable to go to a hospice owing to challenging behaviours. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice use over 2 weeks was associated with decreased hospital days (1-5 days overall, with greater decreases for longer hospice use) for all beneficiaries; spending was $900-$5,000 less for hospice use of 31-90 days for most beneficiaries not in nursing homes, except beneficiaries with Alzheimer's. Overall spending decreased with hospice use for beneficiaries in nursing homes with lung cancer only, with a $3,500 reduction. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 22 total CCMs, 12 participated in this study (employed as a CCM for a median [IQR] of 2 [1-3] years; 12 [100%] female) and identified populations that they perceived to especially benefit from the program, including PLWD, patients in hospice, and patients living in group homes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
37/100
Most persons with dementia in the U.S. die in long-term care communities. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Five themes were identified that describe the context of decision making: emotional effect, insult-to-life story, two faces of death, values and goals regarding end-of-life treatments, and the unrecognized trajectory of dying. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The number of older adults with cognitive impairment is increasing, and such adults often require a surrogate to make decisions about health care. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article reports the findings of a policy survey designed to establish research priorities to inform future research strategy and advance nursing home practice. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Design qualitative exploration of views from care home staff and the family of residents in care homes for older people. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
End-of-life transitions between health care settings are common across EU countries, in particular late hospitalizations for people residing at home. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The U.S. Medicare hospice benefit has expanded considerably into the nursing home (NH) setting in recent years. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than two-thirds of long-stay nursing home residents suffer from dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although not significant, results as to the effectiveness of such an intervention to improve family satisfaction with end-of-life care are encouraging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The staff require education and support about discussing and implementing plans around care at the end of life in dementia and about cultural issues around death to improve practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
We identify two main ED physician-perceived barriers to PC provision: lack of access to medical records and lack of 24/7 availability of PC team. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to the NH staff, fairly good quality care was provided, but the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of care need to be addressed more in the last days of the dying NH patient's life. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance directives for euthanasia are never adhered to in the Netherlands in the case of people with advanced dementia, and their role in advance care planning and end-of-life care of people with advanced dementia is limited. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We recommend the EOLD-SWC to measure QOC, and the EOLD-CAD and MSSE to measure QOD in populations with dementia and in mixed long term care populations of nursing home or residential care home/assisted living residents, because they performed best in both countries. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Where “Free full text” comes from
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomized / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multicenter collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 32,180 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events
Last updated