Most care staff for long-term care residents with dementia experience low or moderate burnout levels. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 598 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
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
The evidence is not conclusive as to whether some BPSD impact caregiver well-being more than others. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The evidence is not conclusive as to whether some symptoms are more important than others. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Coping style may be more associated with anxiety than depression while other covariates (burden and poor physical health) are similar to those for caregiver depression. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this review support, but do not conclusively establish, the association between BPSD and PSC. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevalence estimates across MBI domains were affective dysregulation (77.8%); impulse control (64.4%); decreased motivation (51.7%); social inappropriateness (27.8%); and abnormal perception or thought content (8.7%). 2 key findings →
Participants: 119 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study results identified that dementia-related factors were the most significant factors, representing 25.6% of caregiver burden and were followed by caregiving-related factors explaining caregiver burden significantly. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,133 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is accumulating evidence that chronic dementia caregiver stress increases their vulnerability to disease and diminishes their ability to provide optimal care. 2 key findings →
Participants: 4,145 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ABSTRACTObjectives:Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are nearly universal in dementia, a condition occurring in more than 40 million people worldwide. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina has affected the care of older adults with dementia deeply. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study showed a large number of unmet needs in dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over the past two decades, caregiver stress has been the subject of scientific inquiry by investigators around the world representing a variety of disciplines. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Liu et al. (2017) investigated caregiver burden of patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), which was compared with caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease. 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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