27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Enrollees in a comprehensive dementia care comanagement program had high engagement in advance care planning, high rates of hospice use, and low acute care utilization near the end of life. 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Even though the provision of PC was empirically recognised as a care step in the management of dementia, there are barriers that hinder access of patients with dementia to appropriate facilities. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings support the reliability and validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale for use with older adults with dementia in nursing home settings. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The lack of content surrounding grief represents a gap for this population at high risk for complicated grief and chronic sorrow. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The facilitated approach explored in this study addressed known barriers to case conferencing. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This Cochrane systematic review looked for solid evidence that respite care (temporary relief for caregivers) helps caregivers or people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Participants: 753 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 11,134 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This pilot randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of LMH-4-DCP in reducing caregiver grief, with improvements in caregiver-care recipient relationship quality. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 68 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Only behavior management therapies, specific types of caregiver and residential care staff education, and possibly cognitive stimulation appear to have lasting effectiveness for the management of dementia-associated neuropsychiatric symptoms. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,632 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We recommend focusing on cognitive enhancement strategies, assessment and management of BPSD, and carer education and support to delay nursing home placement. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Educational support for general practitioners should concentrate on epidemiological knowledge, disclosure of the diagnosis and management of behaviour problems in dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
At 16 weeks, 67.5% of intervention caregivers reported improvement in targeted problem behavior, compared with 45.8% of caregivers in a no-treatment control group (P=.002), and reduced upset with (P=.03) and enhanced confidence managing (P=.01) the behavior. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A structured, multicomponent skills training intervention that targeted CG self-care behaviors as one of five target areas, improved self-reported health status, and decreased burden and bother in racially and ethnically diverse CGs of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant main effects in the expected direction were found for changes in most of these measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Global assessments are Food and Drug Administration-required primary outcome measures in trials of putative antidementia drugs. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Professional caregivers may initiate ACP early if strategies carefully consider timing and family and patient receptiveness or reluctance, and are family and patient-centered. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rural subjects with higher health literacy were more likely to want comfort care compared to those with lower levels of health literacy. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The majority of dementia-related deaths in the United States occurred in nursing homes (66.9%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 88,523 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Collaborative dementia care programs are effective in addressing the needs of patients with dementia and their caregivers. 3 key findings →
Participants: 780 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,021 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Effects of caregiving on physical health have received less theoretical and empirical attention than effects on psychological health. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients were divided into a development (n = 3859) and validation (n = 1929) cohort. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,859 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Because most interventions have domain-specific outcomes, clinicians must tailor interventions according to the specific needs of the individual caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →