alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 39 studies in Clinical safety (page 1 of 2) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 39 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 39 studies tagged controlled — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

What “Clinical safety” covers

Clinical safety — Risks that come up in real-world dementia care: drug side effects, delirium, swallowing problems and other hospital-level harms.

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.

Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2018-05-15

We found moderate-quality evidence that postoperative cognitive dysfunction at three months could be reduced in these patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,929 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cognitive outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 91,829 patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. International journal of cardiology 2019-04-24

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that cognitive impairment and delirium are major issues in CABG patients which require specific attention. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 91,829 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Effects of Vivifrail multicomponent intervention on functional capacity: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle 2022-02-11

The Vivifrail exercise programme provided significant benefits in functional capacity over usual-care. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 88 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Physical exercise improves strength, balance, mobility, and endurance in people with cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Journal of physiotherapy 2017-12-27

Question Does physical exercise training improve physical function and quality of life in people with cognitive impairment and dementia? 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,988 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Multifactorial intervention after a fall in older people with cognitive impairment and dementia presenting to the accident and emergency department: randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2003-01-01

Multifactorial intervention was not effective in preventing falls in older people with cognitive impairment and dementia presenting to the accident and emergency department after a fall. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Journal of gerontological nursing 2013-03-22

This pilot study aimed to compare the effect of companion robots (PARO) to participation in an interactive reading group on emotions in people living with moderate to severe dementia in a residential care setting. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Preoperative Cognitive Performance and Postoperative Delirium Are Independently Associated With Future Dementia in Older People Who Have Undergone Cardiac Surgery: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Critical care medicine 2017-08-01

Our findings suggest that older patients with reduced preoperative cognitive functions or who develop postoperative delirium are at risk of developing dementia within 5 years after cardiac surgery. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Can Hearing Aids Delay Time to Diagnosis of Dementia, Depression, or Falls in Older Adults?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019-09-04

Use of HAs is associated with delayed diagnosis of AD, dementia, depression, anxiety, and injurious falls among older adults with HL. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Effectiveness of exercise programs to reduce falls in older people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Clinical interventions in aging 2015-02-09

However, further research is needed with studies using larger sample sizes, standardized measurement outcomes, and longer follow-up periods, to inform evidence-based recommendations. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Post-infection cognitive impairments in a cohort of elderly patients with COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2021-07-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with an increased risk of long-term cognitive decline in elderly population. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,539 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Extraskeletal effects of vitamin D in older adults: cardiovascular disease, mortality, mood, and cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2010-02-01

Forty-two case-control, cohort, and randomized trials were identified and included in the review. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Validity and sensitivity to change of the falls efficacy scales international to assess fear of falling in older adults with and without cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Gerontology 2010-10-22

The Short FES-I is a valid measure to assess fear of falling in frail older adults with and without cognitive impairment, yet it may show floor effects in higher functioning older people. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 284 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Interrelationship of oral health status, swallowing function, nutritional status, and cognitive ability with activities of daily living in Japanese elderly people receiving home care services due to physical disabilities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 2012-08-30

A lower number of teeth are positively related to swallowing dysfunction, whereas denture wearing contributes to recovery of swallowing function. 3 key findings →

Participants: 286 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cognitive screening predicts magnitude of functional recovery from admission to 3 months after discharge in hospitalized elders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2003-01-01

Performance on a brief cognitive screen on admission was strongly related to subsequent change in function. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,557 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Impact of annual wellness visits on preventing falls and fractures for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2026-03-01

AWVs were associated with reduced risks for falls (HR: 0.976 for 2 AWVs; 0.936 for ≥3 AWVs) and fractures (HR: 0.978 for 1 AWV; 0.960 for 2 AWVs; 0.927 for ≥3 AWVs), with greater reductions observed with more AVWs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Impact of COVID-19 Infection and Enforced Prolonged Social Isolation on Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Older Adults With and Without Dementia: A Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in psychiatry 2020-10-22

Fifteen articles were included: 8 focussed on the psychiatric symptoms caused by the COVID-19 infection and 7 investigated the impact of social isolation on older adults' neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Consensus on Shared Measures of Mobility and Cognition: From the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2019-05-01

A standardized assessment battery that captures shared characteristics of mobility and cognition seen in aging and neurodegeneration may increase comparability across research studies, detection of subtle or common reversible factors, and accelerate research progress in dementia, falls, and aging-related disabilities. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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