Residents' mean age was 86.5 years, 39 (12.9%) were African American, and 246 (81.5%) were women. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The methods we used for intervention fidelity allowed nursing home staff to implement a goals of care decision aid intervention for advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 151 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most families chose comfort as the primary GOC. 4 key findings →
Participants: 302 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Stress was more often reported by care providers who had been working for 1 to 2 years (compared with longer); in addition, those who had been working for 1 to 2 years were more likely to espouse hopeful or person-centered attitudes than those who had been working for a longer period of time. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2-year rate of infection was 1.20 episodes per 100 resident days, and the hospitalization rate for infection was 0.17 admissions per 100 resident days. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although most falls do not result in injury, the fact that residents with dementia fall more often than their counterparts without dementia leaves them with a higher overall risk of sustaining injurious falls over time. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
55/100
Eight hospitals in Baltimore, Maryland. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The incidence of PUs was 0.38 per person-year in the NH. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,938 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 70 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Assisted living residences have become prominent sites of long-term residential care for older adults with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The findings identify resident subgroups at especially high risk of poor oral health who can be targeted in quality improvement efforts related to oral hygiene; they also indicate need to improve the accuracy of how MDS items are completed. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Rates of hospice use observed in this study (22%) were considerably higher than previously reported, although persons with dementia may continue to be underreferred. 2 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nonpharmacological practices to address BPSDs include sensory practices (aromatherapy, massage, multi-sensory stimulation, bright light therapy), psychosocial practices (validation therapy, reminiscence therapy, music therapy, pet therapy, meaningful activities), and structured care protocols (bathing, mouth care). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We recommend the EOLD-SWC to measure QOC, and the EOLD-CAD and MSSE to measure QOD in populations with dementia and in mixed long term care populations of nursing home or residential care home/assisted living residents, because they performed best in both countries. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Instruments that assess quality when dying differ in several ways and most do not measure a single construct, which is relevant to guiding and evaluating care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We noted no differences between decedents with and without dementia in terms of pain, psychosocial status, family involvement, advance care planning, most life-prolonging interventions, and hospice use. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because previous research favored care in the Netherlands to that in the United States, findings suggest improvement in end-of-life care and outcomes in the United States and stability in the Netherlands. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →