27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Advance care planning was effective in reducing family carer uncertainty in decision-making concerning the care of their family member and improving perceptions of quality of care in nursing homes. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This landmark NIH-funded trial (REACH II) tested a structured, multi-part support program for 642 Hispanic, White, and Black family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's or related dementias across 5 U.S. cities. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 642 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Health care expenditures among persons with dementia were substantially larger than those for other diseases, and many of the expenses were uncovered (uninsured). 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 1,702 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is an extensive body of qualitative literature on the experiences of community-dwelling individuals with dementia on receiving and adapting to a diagnosis of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,095 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study, quantitative results were inconclusive owing to small sample size. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Home based support for caregivers of persons with dementia, which emphasizes the use of locally available, low-cost human resources, is feasible, acceptable and leads to significant improvements in caregiver mental health and burden of caring. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life care and research that focuses only on cognitive and functional decline may fail to recognise the complexities and unmet needs relevant to dementia and end of life. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two thirds (66%) of adult child caregivers in the control condition admitted their parent to a residential care setting compared with 37% in the treatment condition. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with dementia differ in their behavioral and psychological symptoms according to their diagnosis with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD), requiring different symptom-management strategies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 228 articles were screened at the title and abstract levels, and 120 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 23 eligible studies were included in the narrative synthesis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 228 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interventions for family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) incorporate diverse elements, but drivers of success are unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At 6 months, compared with usual care, participants receiving the intervention had better QOL (QOL-AD score, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.82] vs -0.88 [95% CI, -1.62 to -0.13]; treatment effect estimate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.07-1.86; P = .03). 4 key findings →
Participants: 612 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings of this review provide insight into catalysing the paradigm shift from 'reducing stress' to 'optimising positive experience' in developing caregiving support services for dementia, and may guide future empirical study to explain this unique dimension of caregiving experience. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,862 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although mixed, the results indicate a positive response for the use of internet-based interventions by caregivers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 19 studies with primary data. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighty-one percent of eligible participants were not aware of a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
General burden is shown to be determined by severity of patient's neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver's sense of competence, health-related quality of life. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MBI component significantly improved multiple caregiver outcomes, with reduced depressive symptoms (β = -2.13 [95% CI, -2.85 to -1.38]; P Conclusions and relevance In this clinical trial of informal caregivers of people with dementia, synergistic interaction effects were noted for MBI, which enhanced the benefits of SC and BPM on depression. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 10/66 DRG baseline population-based studies are nearly complete. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The quality and level of evidence supporting each theme varied. 2 key findings →
Participants: 5,539 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of 131 randomized controlled trials, published between 2006 and mid-2018, for dementia caregivers with community-dwelling care-recipients. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Younger family caregivers caring for clinically unstable patients with severe neuropsychiatric symptoms experienced greater burden without informal paid help. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 893 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 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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
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.
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 27,780 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →