from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 354,985 Evidence: high
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.
Of 1648 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 38 hospitals, 398 (24.2%) died during hospitalization and 1250 (75.8%) survived. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,648 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no significant reduction in hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive in the intervention vs control groups (rate [SE], 3.7 [0.2]; 95% CI, 3.4-4.0 vs 3.9 [0.3]; 95% CI, 3.6-4.1; rate difference [SE], -0.2 [0.3]; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.2). 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,171 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to synthesise data on risk factors for incident delirium and where possible conduct meta-analysis of these. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 411 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 847 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 2,176 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 600 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 99 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A systematic approach to the management of pain significantly reduced agitation in residents of nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Levels of apathy decreased slightly in both groups (mean decrease in AES-I of .61 points, 95% CI -3.54, 2.33 for TBI and .36 points, 95% CI -3.27, 2.55 for CAS). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this sample of 101 219 patients, 52.7% were women and mean age was 62.6 years (SD, 9.3 years) as of November 1, 2016. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 101,219 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
78/100
We sought to determine the frequency and prognosis of persistent delirium (PerD) in older hospital patients by systematically reviewing original research on this topic. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,322 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggested high prevalence and detrimental impact of DSD in hospitalized older adults, highlighting a need for early identification, prevention, and treatments. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most proxies select comfort as the preferred level of care for NH residents with advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 402 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present a range of trigger tools spanning different hospital settings and patient populations. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 17,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Better alignment between preferences for comfort-focused care and advance directives is needed in advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 328 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community occupational therapy intervention for patients with dementia and their care givers is successful and cost effective, especially in terms of informal care giving. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Promotion of person centred care and good practice in the management of patients with dementia with behavioural symptoms provides an effective alternative to neuroleptics. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-six resident videos were shared with family (N = 50) and staff (N = 38) during care plan meetings. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium in the elderly appears to have a poor prognosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 573 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
More than half (55.65%) of AL residents had a diagnosis of SMI, among them 93.2% had major depression, 28.5% schizophrenia, and 22.2% bipolar disorder. 4 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 289,350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia who visited an ED, there was no evidence that hospital admission was associated with mortality rates. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 872,085 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,936 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high
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
- 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 →