27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 239 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 2-year multi-domain lifestyle intervention among older adults was effective in preventing cerebrovascular events and also total CVD events among those who had history of CVD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 631 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current study investigated several factors that might increase the risk of mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 223,875 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no significant reduction in hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive in the intervention vs control groups (rate [SE], 3.7 [0.2]; 95% CI, 3.4-4.0 vs 3.9 [0.3]; 95% CI, 3.6-4.1; rate difference [SE], -0.2 [0.3]; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.2). 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,171 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence suggests that delirium is associated with long-term poor outcome but delirium often occurs in individuals with more severe underlying disease. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 714 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 10.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.3 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.08). 4 key findings →
Participants: 19,114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Providing multidomain lifestyle training through a web-platform is feasible and well-accepted, but the training should be challenging enough and adequately progress according to participants' capabilities to increase adherence. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to synthesise data on risk factors for incident delirium and where possible conduct meta-analysis of these. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 411 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community-dwelling older adults with pain were more likely to have fallen in the past 12 months and to fall again in the future. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 17,926 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 21,788 citations were screened, and seven studies of diverse quality were included in the review, comprising 1,691 participants. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,691 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 600 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early identification and management of OD should consider geriatric syndromes and neurogenic comorbidities to prevent malnutrition and pneumonia and reduce mortality in adults aged 60 years and older. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31,488 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,350 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
451 (11%) of 4241 beds in ten hospitals were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 118 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We sought to determine the frequency and prognosis of persistent delirium (PerD) in older hospital patients by systematically reviewing original research on this topic. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,322 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients possessed above risk factors might be high-risk patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 104,572 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides preliminary evidence that falls among community-dwelling older adults are associated with factors such as age, female gender, fear of falling, history of falls, unclear vision, depression, and balance disorders. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggested high prevalence and detrimental impact of DSD in hospitalized older adults, highlighting a need for early identification, prevention, and treatments. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present a range of trigger tools spanning different hospital settings and patient populations. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 17,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review found that withdrawal of preventive medicines at the end of life is challenging. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26,854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-two studies (20 randomised; 32 non-randomised) with 4786 participants diagnosed with cancer (n = 4491), dementia (n = 43), AIDS (n = 235), spasticity (n = 16), NORSE syndrome (n = 1) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,491 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Concerning deceased residents, we collected 551 of 610 questionnaires from staff at baseline and 984 of 1178 postintervention in 37 intervention and 36 control homes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 862 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 →