27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,122 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 99 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This will be vital in moving to a phase III trial that is pragmatic and feasible for these complex patients within the NHS. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with advanced dementia often receive poor end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
End-of-life care and research that focuses only on cognitive and functional decline may fail to recognise the complexities and unmet needs relevant to dementia and end of life. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the increased interest in palliative care for patients with dementia there is currently little evidence on which to base such an approach. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the relationship between ethnic minority status and provision of end-of-life care for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Five hundred and forty five patients from 67 NH units were included and randomized to the intervention ( N = 297; 36 units) and control group ( N = 248; 31 units). 5 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the majority of studies agreed that the Functional Assessment Staging 7c criterion was not a reliable predictor of 6-month mortality, we found a lack of prognosticator concordance across the literature. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Grief in dementia carers can be expected; however, those at risk of distressing anticipatory and complicated grief may be identified and targeted for intervention when necessary. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Wishes and preferences of people with dementia and their family carers may differ. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In interviews PWD were able to indicate their treatment preferences across all three scenarios. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Contextual factors regarding the care home environment may be obdurate and tend to negatively impact on the quality of end of life dementia care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Qualitative methods of service evaluation facilitated a broader and deeper understanding of a range of perspectives, which, with other components of rapid participatory appraisal, generated potential solutions to improve care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The process of advance care planning in dementia is far from straightforward; as dementia progresses, the ability to consider future thoughts and actions becomes compromised, thus affecting decision-making abilities. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study suggests that decision making at the end of life for people with dementia has the potential to be improved. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Interdisciplinary Care Leader role offers a promising method for supporting and improving end-of-life care discussions between families of people with advanced dementia and nursing home staff. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four broad areas were identified as requiring complex decisions at the end of life; 1) eating/swallowing difficulties, 2) agitation/restlessness, 3) ending life-sustaining treatment, and 4) providing "routine care" at the end of life. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
End-of-life care policy in the UK states that all people should identify their needs, priorities and preferences for end-of-life care in the form of advance care planning. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current evidence base for ACP in dementia is limited. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The number of people with dementia will rise dramatically over the next 20 years. 5 key findings →
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
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 →