58/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.
·
PLoS Medicine
·
2018-06-26
This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-02-08
The sample included 2 619 464 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 61% women; 87% were White; 8% were Black; 22% with ADRD). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 464
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among 370,094 persons with dementia, 93,801 (25.4%) were in MA (mean age [SD], 86.9 [7.7], 67.6% female), 39,586 (10.7%) were ACO attributed (mean age [SD], 87.2 [7.6], 67.3% female), and 236,707 (63.9%) were in TM (mean age [SD], 87.0 [7.8], 67.6% female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 370,094
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
51/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2023-09-15
The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
51/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2023-09-15
In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
50/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2026-05-31
The study cohort included 1 415 265 long-stay nursing home residents with dementia who died between 2013 and 2022. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We found that a larger share of Hispanic Medicare residents that are admitted to nursing homes have ADRD compared with African American and White beneficiaries. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,302,099
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
In 2014 and 2016, the overall prevalence of AD/ADRD diagnoses was 5.6% and 6.5%, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among non-dually eligible beneficiaries, 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.0, 9.1) with ADRD disenrolled while 19.7% (95% CI: 19.6, 19.9) switched plans within MA compared to a disenrollment rate of 4.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 4.2) and switching rate of 22.8% (95% CI: 22.9, 22.8) for persons without ADRD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among TM enrollees, prevalence of dementia was lower by 4% points in 2014 (9.0%, 95%CI: 7.8%, 9.3%) compared to 2000 (13.0%, 95%CI: 12%, 14%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18,381
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
There were 115,757 NH residents with dementia who self-reported pain in the last 30 days of life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20,585
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
An increasing number of older adults reside in assisted living (AL) toward the end of life, and it remains unclear if this trend represents an additional place of care and end-of-life transition before eventual nursing home admission. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 273,722
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The study included 2,284,175 FFS Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis in 2017. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,284,175
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The agreement between the two measures of dementia differed by age: in 2017, 79.2% of hospital claims for patients aged 66–74 had a diagnosis of dementia compared to older age categories that had dementia noted in over 85% of records. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,273,348
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Racial and ethnic differences in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias are well documented. 4 key findings →
Participants: 18,550
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among beneficiaries sampled by CAHPS, 22.2% with ADRD completed the survey compared to 38.5% without ADRD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
In 2016, there were 1,005,781 Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service long-term residents. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Our results show that MA enrollees in PR have six percentage points higher ADRD rates than their US counterparts. 2 key findings →
Participants: 123,609
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
37/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2020-03-30
fewer functional limitations in the MA population, perhaps explaining why those patients had fewer health care visits. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among SNF admissions from 2013 to 2018, the share of ACO-attributed beneficiaries increased from 7.6% to 20.2%, MA enrollees increased from 25.2% to 32.8%, and non-ACO-attributed TM enrollees decreased from 67.2% to 47.3%. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been rapidly growing. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
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.