Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–12 of 12 studies in Health systems and care delivery · tagged Side Effects · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Health systems and care delivery” covers

Health systems and care delivery — How health systems organise, coordinate and pay for dementia care, and where and how people with dementia actually receive it.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Benzodiazepines of long and short elimination half-life and the risk of hip fracture

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA 1989-12-01

To determine if the risk of hip fracture difference between persons receiving benzodiazepines with long (greater than or equal to 24 hours) or short (less than 24 hours) elimination half-lives, we conducted a nested case-control study among residents of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan who were 65 years of age and older. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Of the 8688 individuals in the Medicare Advantage population with a dementia diagnosis, 1061 (12.2%) received an antipsychotic medication. 4 key findings →

Participants: 8,688 Evidence: low

Medicaid’s Prior Authorization Program And Access To Atypical Antipsychotic Medications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Health Affairs 2007-05-01

State Medicaid programs use prior authorization (PA) to control drug spending by requiring that specific conditions be met before allowing reimbursement. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Currently, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Common Format for nursing homes (NHs) accommodates voluntary reporting for 4 adverse events: falls with injury, pressure ulcers, medication errors, and infections. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibody, was recently approved for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease in South Korea. 5 key findings →

Participants: 112 Evidence: low

Atypical antipsychotics are associated with incident diabetes in older adults without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder QUESTION Question: Is atypical antipsychotic use associated with incident diabetes or hyperlipidaemia in older people without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? 1 key finding →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Deprescribing benzodiazepines

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. The Nurse Practitioner 2019-01-23

The mechanism of action of benzodiazepines is through the modulation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an inhibitory neurotransmitter that suppresses the central nervous system (CNS); the drugs have efficacy for short-term use (less than 1 month), but patients can develop a tolerance and dependence with long-term use.2 The benefits of benzodiazepines decrease over time and there are increased associated risks such as cognitive decline, accidental injuries, falls, and increased rates of hospital admissions and ED visits.2 Patients can also have paradoxical anxiety while on benzodiazepines.3 Studies have shown that long-term use of benzodiazepines increases the risk of dementia.4,5 Recent clinical practice guidelines recommend deprescribing benzodiazepines for older adults (age 65 years or older) for use in insomnia, and the American Geriatric Society (AGS) BEERs Criteria recommend avoidance of benzodiazepines in older adults because of the increased risk of adverse reactions such as falls and fractures.1,6 The AGS does say that benzodiazepines may be appropriate for use in older adults in certain circumstances such as ethanol withdrawal, and periprocedural anesthesia.6 The FDA has cautioned providers about prescribing benzodiazepines in patients using opioids but does not recommend withholding medications used for opioid use disorder in patients taking benzodiazepines.7,8 NPs can be instrumental in adequately treating anxiety and insomnia disorders with nonpharmacologic interventions (such as yoga and sleep hygiene) as well as with other medication classes that are not benzodiazepines. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed