Fifteen papers were included. Studies focused on educational and system change to improve the care of people with DSD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
1508 articles were retrieved and screened using pre-established inclusion criteria; 21 empirical articles were retained. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four GPs and eleven physicians were interviewed, and four major themes emerged: (1) knowledge of best practices of BPSD management, (2) awareness of current challenges in BPSD management, (3) non-involvement, blame shifting and rationalisation: perceived reasons for the current challenges and (4) suggested solutions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Enrollment of participants began on April 23, 2023. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The review included 45 studies and identified key components and processes for successfully implementing advance care planning in dementia care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Six core themes were identified through the synthesis of data from 17 studies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants described AI tools as potentially helpful for obtaining information, monitoring patients, managing medications and appointments, providing companionship, and conducting logistical tasks. 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with dementia were more likely to have staff or family members present at death, to receive documented decisions to shift to EOL care, have symptom assessments made the final week of life and prescription of injectables. 5 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Remote monitoring (RM) technology can support home-based dementia care by enabling (in)formal caregivers to monitor the health and safety of people with dementia remotely. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 39 participants participated across the 6 stakeholder focus groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An Interprofessional Virtual Healthcare Neighborhood (VHN) was designed to deliver information, peer support, and professional guidance to caregivers of individuals with dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Responsibility for managing medications for older adults and/or people living with dementia in the community often falls to informal caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prototypes for two devices (armband and electronic notepad) were developed. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This research explores how the loss of driving privileges by impaired drivers affects households. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Systematic evaluation of end-of-life care in dementia has been hampered by a lack of instruments to specifically address those issues that are unique for persons who are dying with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Five themes were identified that describe the context of decision making: emotional effect, insult-to-life story, two faces of death, values and goals regarding end-of-life treatments, and the unrecognized trajectory of dying. 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
Research on end-of-life care for people with dementia has yet to develop interventions that address the particular challenges that dying with dementia poses. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our hospice enrollment criteria identified a group with a median survival time of 4 months and a mean survival time of 6.9 months. 3 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
The number of older adults with cognitive impairment is increasing, and such adults often require a surrogate to make decisions about health care. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Professional and family members of demented individuals, especially if they have experience in terminal care decisions, strongly favor palliative care for end-stage dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The quality of end-of-life care exists on a continuum across care settings. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice family caregivers are at high risk for both psychological and physical health disorders, and caregiver depression and health problems should be systematically assessed and treated by the hospice team. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Design qualitative exploration of views from care home staff and the family of residents in care homes for older people. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
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.
- Caregiver support groups in patients with dementia: a meta-analysis
- The Costs of Dementia From the Societal Perspective: Is Care Provided in the Community Really Cheaper Than Nursing Home Care?
- What are the best practices for providing end-of-life care to patients with coexisting COPD, dementia, and cancer?
- Nurses will sign up to improve care in RCN dementia campaign
- What is important at the end of life for people with dementia? The views of people with dementia and their carers
- ‘It should be my choice’: voluntary assisted dying needs and preferences of Australians living with dementia
- Caregivers’ Perspectives on Discussions of Medical Treatment Preferences for People Living With Dementia Are Associated With Their Dementia Health Literacy and the Caregiving Relationship
- Having Their Cake and Eating it Too: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study on the Dietary Behaviours of Family Carers of Persons With Dementia
- Initiating palliative care consults for advanced dementia patients in the emergency department
- Use of medications of questionable benefit in advanced dementia
Where “Free full text” comes from
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
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 27,780 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.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →