Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 31 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment of type randomised controlled trial (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Cognitive tests and assessment” covers

Cognitive tests and assessment — Memory and thinking tests, screening tools and rating scales: how well they measure what they claim to.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high

The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high

Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,400 Evidence: high

Levels of apathy decreased slightly in both groups (mean decrease in AES-I of .61 points, 95% CI -3.54, 2.33 for TBI and .36 points, 95% CI -3.27, 2.55 for CAS). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 162 Evidence: high

The use of ecologically oriented approaches with virtual reality (VR) depicting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is a promising approach for interventions on acquired brain injuries. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Our sample had a mean age of 66.8 (SD = 5.3) years, a mean HAM-D score of 19.4 (SD = 7.5), and a mean PHQ-9 score of 18.0 (SD = 6.3). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

Technology Literacy as a Barrier to Telehealth During COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2020-05-19

Prior work has shown that the video component significantly contributes to quality and satisfaction of the visit.3 In addition to the technology itself, patients need to know what to expect for their telehealth appointments. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 5,000 Evidence: high

Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001-05-01

Delirium (or acute confusional state) affects 35% to 65% of patients after hip-fracture repair, and has been independently associated with poor functional recovery. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high

A recent Cochrane review of reality orientation therapy identified the need for large, well-designed, multi-centre trials. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 201 Evidence: high

We investigated the effects of renin-angiotensin system blockade on cognitive function in patients aged 55 years and older with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage in two clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 620 Evidence: high

Compared with UC, CCT increased scores on the MDRS's total, attention, and memory and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination and Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status over the 6-month intervention; TC increased scores on the MDRS's total and conceptualization and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination over the 6-month intervention, while it also increased scores on the MDRS's total and initiation/preservation and those on the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status and reduced the time to complete the Trail Making Test B over the 12-month study. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Aerobic exercise has shown inconsistent cognitive effects in older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 96 Evidence: high

Participants allocated to CR received 10 weekly sessions over 3 months and four maintenance sessions over 6 months. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 475 Evidence: high

Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study aimed to investigate the association between a virtual reality (VR) intervention program and cognitive, brain and physical functions in high-risk older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 68 Evidence: high

Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cognitive and physical activities are associated with better cognition in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

There are 9.9 million new cases of dementia in the world every year. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high

Aspirin in Alzheimer's disease (AD2000): a randomised open-label trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2008-01-01

Cardiovascular risk factors and a history of vascular disease can increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Poor vitamin D nutrition is linked with dementia, but vitamin D has not been tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed