Eighty-one studies with 3347 participants were included in this review. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,347 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
On meta-analysis, PARO had no ST or LT compared to UC or AC over 5-12 weeks on agitation (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 153 participants: pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.25; - 0.57 to 0.06; LT vs UC; 2 trials, 77 participants, SMD = -0.24; - 0.94, 0.46), cognition (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 128 participants: SMD= 0.03; -0.32, 0.38), overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 169 participants: SMD= -0.01; -0.32, 0.29; ST vs AC, 2 trials, 145 participants: SMD =0.02, -0.71, 0.85), apathy (ST vs AC, 2 trials, 81 participants: SMD= 0.14; 0.29, 0.58), depression (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 181 participants; SMD= 0.08; -0.52, 0.69; LT vs UC: 2 trials, 77 participants: SMD =0.01; -0.75, 0.77), anxiety (ST vs UC: 2 trials, 104 participants, SMD= 0.24; -0.85, 1.33) and quality of life (ST vs UC, 2 trials, 127 participants: SMD=-0.05; -0.52, 0.42; ST vs AC: 2 trials, 159 participants, SMD =-0.36, -0.76, 0.05). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 153 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
67/100
Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-five studies were analyzed with data from 3268 caregivers (pooled mean age [SD of sample means], 63.48 [5.99] years; 76.7% female) were analyzed. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Internet course 'Mastery over Dementia' offers an effective treatment for family caregivers of people with dementia reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety. 4 key findings →
Participants: 149 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 704 records met the inclusion criteria for bibliometric analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 704 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 11,134 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This pilot randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of LMH-4-DCP in reducing caregiver grief, with improvements in caregiver-care recipient relationship quality. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 68 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Only behavior management therapies, specific types of caregiver and residential care staff education, and possibly cognitive stimulation appear to have lasting effectiveness for the management of dementia-associated neuropsychiatric symptoms. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,632 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We recommend focusing on cognitive enhancement strategies, assessment and management of BPSD, and carer education and support to delay nursing home placement. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At 16 weeks, 67.5% of intervention caregivers reported improvement in targeted problem behavior, compared with 45.8% of caregivers in a no-treatment control group (P=.002), and reduced upset with (P=.03) and enhanced confidence managing (P=.01) the behavior. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A structured, multicomponent skills training intervention that targeted CG self-care behaviors as one of five target areas, improved self-reported health status, and decreased burden and bother in racially and ethnically diverse CGs of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Professional caregivers may initiate ACP early if strategies carefully consider timing and family and patient receptiveness or reluctance, and are family and patient-centered. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,021 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Because most interventions have domain-specific outcomes, clinicians must tailor interventions according to the specific needs of the individual caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The evidence is not conclusive as to whether some BPSD impact caregiver well-being more than others. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Internet interventions for informal dementia caregivers may improve caregiver well-being. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Beneficiaries with dementia who had lower levels of continuity of care were younger, had a higher income, and had more comorbid medical conditions. 3 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aimed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of DREAMS START compared with treatment as usual (TAU). 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Benefit-finding reduces depressive symptoms as well as global burden in the long-term and increases psychological well-being in the medium-term. 1 key finding →
Participants: 129 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred forty-nine carers enrolled in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention group showed less discomfort (-1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.88 to -0.23) and fewer sentinel events (-0.40; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.16), specifically pneumonia (-0.08; 95% CI = -0.14, -0.02). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 116 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results provide evidence for the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extended nursing roles in dementia care, demonstrating that extended nursing roles reduce unmet needs and improve quality of life. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 417 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →