Overall, 39 participants participated across the 6 stakeholder focus groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors critically reviewed 26 international and American outcome studies that assessed the effect of psychiatric comorbidity on length of stay for medical/surgical inpatients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The management of Parkinson's disease (PD) tends to focus on the presenting motor syndrome; yet, in the long term, nonmotor complications of the illness and complications of treatment become increasingly troublesome. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is evidence to support an association between hospitalization and development of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most decline occurred prior to hospitalization and was associated with common indicators of poor outcomes in hospitalized elders. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The contribution of specific psychotropic drugs to fall risk in patients with dementia has not been quantified precisely until now. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Instruments that assess quality when dying differ in several ways and most do not measure a single construct, which is relevant to guiding and evaluating care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We noted no differences between decedents with and without dementia in terms of pain, psychosocial status, family involvement, advance care planning, most life-prolonging interventions, and hospice use. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A lower level of nursing support managed to sustain and build on the initial outcomes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The goals of palliative care address critical issues for individuals with complex and serious illness residing in nursing homes, including pain and symptom management, communication, preparation for death, decisions about treatment preferences, and caregiver support. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most rural focus group participants voiced unqualified acceptance of death and placed few conditions on death, beyond their hope that it would be quick and peaceful. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
9 of the 973 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
- Telehealth Use by Home Health Agencies Before, During, and After COVID-19
- Care home leadership: action is needed
- Strategies to prevent falls and fractures in hospitals and care homes and effect of cognitive impairment: systematic review and meta-analyses
- Use of antipsychotics among elderly nursing home residents with dementia in the US: an analysis of National Survey Data
- Association between acute care and critical illness hospitalization and cognitive function in older adults
- Workplace violence in different settings and among various health professionals in an Italian general hospital: a cross-sectional study
- Dying in U.S. nursing homes with advanced dementia: how does health care use differ for residents with, versus without, end-of-life Medicare skilled nursing facility care?
- Quality of Care and Outcomes Among a Diverse Group of Long-Term Care Residents With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias
- Determinants of dementia diagnosis in U.S. primary care in the past decade: A scoping review
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
- Randomised / 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
- Multi-centre 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →