Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,373 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Quality of the reporting of trials varied. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of APs by patients with dementia in the general population is associated with increased mortality, but whether this risk extends to patients with PD remains unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,877 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
Decrease in delirium scores were not significantly different comparing the effect of low dose haloperidol (< 3.0 mg per day) with the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine and risperidone (Odds ratio 0.63 (95% CI 10.29 - 1.38; p = 0.25). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In covariate-adjusted intent-to-treat analyses, haloperidol was associated with the highest mortality rates (relative risk=1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.38-1.73) followed by risperidone (reference), olanzapine (relative risk=0.99, 95% CI=0.89-1.10), valproic acid and its derivatives (relative risk=0.91, 95% CI=0.78-1.06), and quetiapine (relative risk=0.73, 95% CI=0.67-0.80). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,604 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Read the article, “Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: How Long Does Every Behavior Last, and Are Particular Behaviors Associated With PRN Antipsychotic Agent Use?” found on pages 22–37, carefully noting any tables and other illustrative materials that are included to enhance your knowledge and understanding of the content. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In relation to placebo, the last observation in phase 1 showed greater improvement with olanzapine or risperidone on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory total score, risperidone on the Clinical Global Impression of Changes, olanzapine and risperidone on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) hostile suspiciousness factor, and risperidone on the BPRS psychosis factor. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Major categories of reasons for use of antipsychotic medications in the 204 NH residents in the study sample were behavioral (n = 171), psychiatric (n = 159), emotional states (n = 105), and cognitive diagnoses or symptoms (n = 114). 5 key findings →
Participants: 171 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation and delusions occur commonly in elderly patients with dementia and often cause significant distress. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Author(s): Reus, Victor I; Fochtmann, Laura J; Eyler, A Evan; Hilty, Donald M; Horvitz-Lennon, Marcela; Jibson, Michael D; Lopez, Oscar L; Mahoney, Jane; Pasic, Jagoda; Tan, Zaldy S; Wills, Cheryl D; Rhoads, Richard; Yager, Joel 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The expert panel reached consensus on 78% of options rated on the 9-point scale. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Food and Drug Administration–approved information and public advertisements belie neurodegenerative risks for second-generation antipsychotics in affective illness. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 87 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirteen significant risk factors were identified: age, male gender, lung diseases, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, severe dementia, angiotensin I-converting enzyme deletion/deletion genotype, bad oral health, malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, and the use of antipsychotic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results from our meta-analysis suggest that the incidence of falls of older adults living in nursing homes is high, and the risk factors for falls are various. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Zolpidem use was a strong, independent, and potentially modifiable risk factor for inpatient falls. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,962 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To assess the risk of hip fracture associated with the use of four classes of psychotropic drugs, we performed a case-control study of 1021 patients with hip fractures and 5606 controls among elderly Medicaid enrollees. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 1,021 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Middle-aged HIV-infected adults have high fall risk. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 359 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium occurred in more than one out of five patients in acute and rehabilitation hospital wards. 4 key findings →
Participants: 429 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In these high-risk patients, antidepressant drug treatment does not seem to be related to suicide attempts and death in adults but might be related in children and adolescents. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that the use of antipsychotic agents and sedatives can affect the natural course of Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Upon initiation of guanfacine, patients with delirium had a reduction in daily antipsychotic exposure and a decrease in positive delirium screens. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It was demonstrated that prevalence of polypharmacy, PIM, and PPO could be decreased by CGA including START/STOPP criteria in older adults. 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 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