Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,373 Evidence: high
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.
At week 32, compared with patients assigned to placebo (59 assessed), those assigned to rivastigmine (55 assessed) had improved step time variability for normal walking (ratio of geometric means 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.002) and the simple dual task (0.79; 0.62-0.99; p=0.045). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 130 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study was unable to demonstrate a benefit for donepezil in preventing or treating delirium in a relatively young and cognitively-intact group of elderly patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. 2 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The experimental paradigm was feasible and acceptable. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies are heterogeneous in many aspects, including size sample, intervention, and instruments of measures. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The optimal management of post-stroke cognitive impairment remains controversial. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ChEIs may increase the risk of syncope, with no effects on falls, fracture, or accidental injury in cognitively impaired older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Poor external validity can result in inadequate treatment decision information. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interventions using educational outreach, on-site education given alone or as part of an intervention package and pharmacist medication review may under certain circumstances reduce inappropriate drug use, but the evidence is of low quality. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To assess the risk of hip fracture associated with the use of four classes of psychotropic drugs, we performed a case-control study of 1021 patients with hip fractures and 5606 controls among elderly Medicaid enrollees. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 1,021 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six inclusion criteria were identified for symptomatic therapy and neuroprotective trials: (1) diagnosis of RBD needs to satisfy the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, second edition, (ICSD-2) criteria; (2) minimum frequency of RBD episodes should preferably be ⩾2 times weekly to allow for assessment of change; (3) if the PD-RBD target population is included, it should be in the early stages of PD defined as Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3 in Off (untreated); (4) iRBD patients with soft neurologic dysfunction and with operational criteria established by the consensus of study investigators; (5) patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI); and (6) optimally treated comorbid OSA. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review shows that occupational therapy interventions for community dwelling elderly people results in positive outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 62 RCTs comprising 200,068 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 200,068 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A large number of non-pharmacological interventions for BPSD were identified. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although psychotropic drug use has been associated with increased risk of falls in long-term care settings; this association may be confounded by the high prevalence of dementia and depression and other fall risk factors. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Outcomes of interest were duration of delirium, health-related quality of life, delirium severity, cognitive function, mortality in the ICU, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and adverse events. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 491 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a working group to review data on amyloid imaging related abnormalities (ARIA) in response to concerns raised by the Food and Drug Administration. 3 key findings →
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 3867 papers identified, 106 were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the patients, 82.2% were receiving at least one dizziness-associated medication and 71.2% at least one hypotension-associated medication. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 210 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In total, 945 were included patients, and 28.1% (n = 266) had dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 266 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In these high-risk patients, antidepressant drug treatment does not seem to be related to suicide attempts and death in adults but might be related in children and adolescents. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This was a retrospective analysis using nationally representative UK general practice population between 1998 and 2018, from electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD, GOLD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,219,732 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From the database searches, 4796 records were identified. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
STOPP criteria PIMs, unlike Beers criteria PIMs, are significantly associated with avoidable ADEs in older people that cause or contribute to urgent hospitalization. 5 key findings →
Participants: 600 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