30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Greater access to effective programs of counseling and support could yield considerable benefits for caregivers, patients with Alzheimer disease, and society. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The techniques evaluated were person-centered showering and the towel bath (a person-centered, in-bed bag-bath with no-rinse soap). 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Collaborative care for the treatment of Alzheimer disease resulted in significant improvement in the quality of care and in behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia among primary care patients and their caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Counseling and support preserved SRH in vulnerable caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Benefit-finding reduces depressive symptoms as well as global burden in the long-term and increases psychological well-being in the medium-term. 1 key finding →
Participants: 129 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A structured multicomponent intervention adapted to individual risk profiles can increase the quality of life of ethnically diverse dementia caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Emotion-oriented care is more effective with regard to the emotional adaptation in nursing homes of persons with a mild to moderate dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Finding positive gains reduces depressive symptoms and burden and promotespsychological well-being primarily through enhancing self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings have implications for clinical practice and suggest that presence of a caregiver may be an important modifying variable on patient outcomes to examine in future research. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this national case-control study of nursing home residents with ADRD receiving hospice care, initiation of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic use was associated with increased 180-day mortality. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control Participants: 139,103 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics and in outcome variables (HHI, GSES, and SF-12v2 mental component score and physical component score) between users and nonusers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 101 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Controlling for pretest, the benefit-finding group had lower depression than the psychoeducation group at post-test, despite the fact that some caregivers found benefit-finding challenging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Benefit-finding is an efficacious intervention for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer caregivers, with strong effects in the medium-term post-intervention and possible moderate effects in the longer-term post-intervention. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first study to test community-based family dementia caregiver intervention in Vietnam. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Phase 3 (NIH stage 1B) is a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the intervention versus the Health Education Program control. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Little is known about the effectiveness of a psychosocial behaviour management programme on home-dwelling people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The multi-sectoral collaborative care model proposed in this study integrated resources from several departments, effectively improved the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, and provided a way of care services for patients with Alzheimer Disease. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Healthcare providers identified caregivers in most of the sample, but less than 50% assessed their well-being and needs. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 211 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Psychoeducational program is effective in reducing the family caregivers' perceived burden. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Care networks ranged from 1 to 8 members. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events