27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The comparative analysis provided a systematic review of cancer caregiving in the context of three other types of caregiving. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
This 3-year randomized clinical trial tested the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary psychoeducational family group intervention in decreasing the caregivers' perceptions of the frequency and severity of behavioral problems in persons with dementia and their reactions to those problems, and in decreasing caregiver burden and depression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this study, patients with advanced dementia and hip fracture or pneumonia had a very poor prognosis. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our aim was to review systematically the effectiveness of ACP interventions in people with cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the increased interest in palliative care for patients with dementia there is currently little evidence on which to base such an approach. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We recommend development and testing of decision aids targeting the decisions carers report finding most distressing, including those around where people should live, accessing services, and end of life treatments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Questionably beneficial medications are common in advanced dementia, even as death approaches. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite much data, we lack a unifying guideline for dementia prognostication. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three-year survival after dementia diagnosis can be predicted with good accuracy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50,076 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature concerning place of death of people with dementia and the preferences for location of death of people with dementia as well as family carers and healthcare providers preferred location of death for patients with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caring for people with dementia in primary care demands the same systematic approach as the management of other long-term conditions. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The experiences and preparedness of informal carers is a reflection of their personal response, but the distress experienced highlights the significant need of adequate support availability and of enhancing nursing staffs' dementia expertise to maximize their role in facilitating best interest decision-making. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the relationship between ethnic minority status and provision of end-of-life care for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The most common place of death in patients with dementia is the retirement or nursing home, followed by hospital and home. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 10,364 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the present meta-analysis, we integrated findings from 228 studies on the association of six caregiving-related stressors and caregiving uplifts with burden and depressed mood. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Some CG interventions can reduce CG psychological morbidity and help people with dementia stay at home longer. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
We found 32 studies with burden models and 24 depression and mental health models. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
We found excellent evidence for the efficacy of six or more sessions of individual behavioral management therapy centered on the care recipient's behavior in alleviating caregiver symptoms both immediately and for up to 32 months. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Interventions had, on average, a significant, small-to-moderate effect on the improvement of ability/knowledge, subjective well-being, burden, depression, and the caregiver's anxiety as well as symptoms of the care recipient. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
10 of the 1,002 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 27,380 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.
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 →