28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Adverse effects offset advantages in the efficacy of atypical antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of psychosis, aggression, or agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results confirm the efficacy and safety of tacrine in some patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Incident use of neuroleptics in Ontario nursing homes is substantial. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 19,780 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) results in progressively worsening cognitive decline, leading to loss of functional ability, behavior/mood disturbances, institutionalization, and death. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evidence to support a specific time frame for discontinuation of Alzheimer's disease treatment is limited. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine; and combination treatments with memantine and one cholinesterase inhibitor. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Currently available data indicate superior therapeutic effects of combination treatment for Alzheimer dementia with memantine and acetylcholine esterase inhibitors in certain clinical contexts. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The average age in our 2 groups was 81.1 years, and 61.4% of our population was female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Rating Scale (iADRS) is a composite tool that combines scores from the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the AD Cooperative Study - instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients with moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because of flawed methods and small clinical benefits, the scientific basis for recommendations of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease is questionable. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pioglitazone is a time- and dose-dependent protective factor against dementia in patients with diabetes. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,401 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A Systematic ReviewObstructive sleep apnoea, positive airway pressure treatment and postoperative delirium: protocol for a retrospective observational studyEvidence supporting the best clinical management of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic guideline review and expert consensusDeprescribiendo para mejorar la salud de las personas o cuando deprescribir puede ser la mejor medicinaThe use of proton pump inhibitors among older adults with intellectual disability: A cross sectional observational studyNeed for Comprehensive Health Care Quality Measures for Older AdultsDevelopment and initial validation of prescribing quality indicators for patients with chronic kidney diseaseOlder patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) toolA New Computer-Based Tool to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions in Hospitalized Geriatric PatientsThe Successful Aging After Elective Surgery Study: Cohort Description and Data Quality ProceduresRoutine deprescribing of chronic medications to combat polypharmacyAnnual Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults: Update for NursesThe impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysisAssessing appropriateness of osteoarthritis care using quality indicators: a systematic reviewCurrent Factors of Fragility and Delirium in Vascular SurgeryDrug-related problems identification in general internal medicine: The impact and role of the clinical pharmacist and pharmacologistPrescription of potentially inappropriate drugs for geriatric patients in long-term care: improvement through pharmacist's interventionChanging practice in dementia care in the community: developing and testing evidence-based interventions, from timely diagnosis to end of life (EVIDEM)High Prevalence of Poor Quality Drug Prescribing in Older Individuals: A Nationwide Report From the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)Delirium in elderly peopleDelphi consensus statement: Quality indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Comprehensive Care UnitsPotentiality of STOPP/START criteria used in primary care to effectively change inappropriate prescribing in elderly patientsToo Much to ManageHip Fracture ManagementAppropriateness of Medication Prescribing Using the STOPP/START Criteria in Veterans Receiving Home-Based Primary CareActualización de la neumonía en el ancianoEstablishi 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In covariate-adjusted intent-to-treat analyses, haloperidol was associated with the highest mortality rates (relative risk=1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.38-1.73) followed by risperidone (reference), olanzapine (relative risk=0.99, 95% CI=0.89-1.10), valproic acid and its derivatives (relative risk=0.91, 95% CI=0.78-1.06), and quetiapine (relative risk=0.73, 95% CI=0.67-0.80). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,604 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donepezil is an effective and safe drug for the long-term symptomatic treatment of mild to moderately severe AD for up to 144 weeks (2.8 years), and sustained treatment may confer some advantages. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 763 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ABSTRACTBackground:This systematic overview reports findings from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). 3 key findings →
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
All ChEIs significantly improved cognitive and neuropsychiatric measures. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The term neuroenhancement refers to improvement in the cognitive, emotional and motivational functions of healthy individuals through, inter alia, the use of drugs. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
14 studies were identified that matched inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pharmacologic treatments for Alzheimer's disease include the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The efficacy of a centrally active cholinesterase inhibitor, rivastigmine tartrate (ENA 713; Exelon, in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease was evaluated in a 26-week open-label extension of a 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current pharmacological therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes the cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For the cohort of patients that remained on therapy > or =60 days, the mean time to treatment discontinuation was 331 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 307-355) for rivastigmine patients (n = 392) versus 337 days (95% CI, 322-352) for donepezil patients (n = 1288). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 392 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twelve studies were included in the final analysis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9 of the 271 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 9. The same 9 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 28,180 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →