76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2013-02-01
Our random 20% sample included 848,303 fee-for-service Medicare decedents (mean age, 82.3 years; 57.9% female, 88.1% white). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 270,202
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This pilot study was unable to demonstrate a benefit for donepezil in preventing or treating delirium in a relatively young and cognitively-intact group of elderly patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. 2 key findings →
Participants: 80
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA surgery
·
2018-11-01
In the primary analysis, limiting the level of sedation provided no significant benefit in reducing incident delirium. 5 key findings →
Participants: 73
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Delirium in the elderly appears to have a poor prognosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 573
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 299
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Main results Two RCTs and one controlled before-and-after study were included (735 participants). 3 key findings →
Participants: 735
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
The patient
·
2019-04-01
Four tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 35
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
BMC medicine
·
2020-07-22
Studies implementing research methods (30 studies) demonstrated the role of family members as both proxy decision-makers and supporting decision-making for the person with impaired capacity. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 19
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
75/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2020-10-01
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with primarily noncancer illness, palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less acute health care use and modestly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 4,068
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05-2·97) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58-0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46-4·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 94
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2004-04-01
Of 275 patients, 51 (18.5%) had persistent coma and died in the hospital. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 275
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Delirium (or acute confusional state) affects 35% to 65% of patients after hip-fracture repair, and has been independently associated with poor functional recovery. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 62
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The use of light propofol sedation decreased the prevalence of postoperative delirium by 50% compared with deep sedation. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 114
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
Age and ageing
·
2021-05-01
Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 5,711
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 87
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 29
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2021-03-01
A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 709
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 6,936
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 119
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
73/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2019-02-01
The study cohort included 568 patients (289 [50.9%] men; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [16.1] years) who died in the hospital or were discharged to hospice. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 568
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2023-09-05
Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P Conclusions and relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →
Participants: 802
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
Age and ageing
·
2018-05-01
Little is known on how risk factors of younger cohorts will play out in the future burden of multi-morbidity (two or more concurrent long-term conditions). 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 303,589
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2001-12-01
Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 111
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50-1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45-3·35, for any first diagnosis). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 379
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
PloS one
·
2019-05-29
Subjective caregiver burden is a significant risk factor for depressive symptoms in carers of older people and may precipitate clinical depression. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 56
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
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 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.