27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Most surrogates reported that patients had previously completed an advance directive (59%), discussed preferences for EOL care (56%), or done both (38%). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Care for the person with dementia requires understanding of the person's perspective and preferences, integrated with knowledge of dementia's trajectory and appropriate care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A national survey of hospices revealed that few patients with primary dementia are currently treated by these programs, unless they have other terminal illnesses. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a progressive life limiting condition with increasing prevalence and complex needs. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning ideally includes communication about values between patients, family members, and care providers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
End-of-life care for persons with dementia in different care settings was retrospectively surveyed. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The journey for people with Alzheimer's disease or another dementia involves the need for increasing levels of support, with transitions across care settings. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We examined families' end-of-life decision making and their interactions with health professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent years have seen a growing recognition that dementia is a terminal illness and that patients with advanced dementia nearing the end of life do not currently receive adequate palliative care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The U.S. Medicare hospice benefit has expanded considerably into the nursing home (NH) setting in recent years. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Supporting family caregivers of individuals with dementia throughout the disease trajectory requires consideration of caregivers : (1) physical, emotional, and psychological needs; (2) information and decisional support needs; and (3) instrumental support needs. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although not significant, results as to the effectiveness of such an intervention to improve family satisfaction with end-of-life care are encouraging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article reviews the Dutch societal debate on euthanasia/assisted suicide in dementia cases, specifically Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For advance directives to better reflect a person's wishes, discussions with individuals and families about advance directives should include a range of care issues in the settings of terminal illness, persistent vegetative state or end-stage illness. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The staff require education and support about discussing and implementing plans around care at the end of life in dementia and about cultural issues around death to improve practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to the NH staff, fairly good quality care was provided, but the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of care need to be addressed more in the last days of the dying NH patient's life. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The number of people with dementia is growing at an alarming rate. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as "palliative care." 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance directives for euthanasia are never adhered to in the Netherlands in the case of people with advanced dementia, and their role in advance care planning and end-of-life care of people with advanced dementia is limited. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice is the standard method for providing quality end-of-life care in the United States. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a common, devastating, and ultimately fatal illness. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concepts of compassion, kindness and humanity in dementia care are discussed within the paper. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
One in three adults over the age of 60 years will die with dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Factor analysis of the Caregiver Strain Index revealed three dimensions of strain (role, personal, and emotional) related to caregiving. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning can be facilitated with the family caregiver in the context of everyday practice within the nursing home environment for older people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →