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 1–24 of 24 studies in Clinical safety published 2015 · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 24 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Clinical safety” covers

Clinical safety — Risks that come up in real-world dementia care: drug side effects, delirium, swallowing problems and other hospital-level harms.

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.

Studies are heterogeneous in many aspects, including size sample, intervention, and instruments of measures. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high

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

However, further research is needed with studies using larger sample sizes, standardized measurement outcomes, and longer follow-up periods, to inform evidence-based recommendations. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Urinary tract infections, pressure areas, pneumonia and delirium are potentially preventable hospital-acquired complications. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Delirium affected a fifth of acute medical admissions and a third of those aged ≥75 years, and was associated with increased mortality, institutionalisation and dependency, but not with increased risk of re-admission on follow-up. 4 key findings →

Participants: 308 Evidence: low

Specific neuropsychiatric symptoms are associated with shorter survival time from mild Alzheimer's dementia to severe dementia and/or death. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

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

Administration of hUCB-MSCs into the hippocampus and precuneus by stereotactic injection was feasible, safe, and well tolerated. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

In acute ischemic stroke, critical hypoperfusion is a frequent cause of hypoxic tissue injury: As cerebral blood flow (CBF) falls below the ischemic threshold of 20 mL/100 mL/min, neurological symptoms develop and hypoxic tissue injury evolves within minutes or hours unless the oxygen supply is restored. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Adverse drug reactions in special populations - the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. British journal of clinical pharmacology 2015-05-22

The International Conference on Harmonization considers older people a 'special population', as they differ from younger adults in terms of comorbidity, polypharmacy, pharmacokinetics and greater vulnerability to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Navigate PD was an educational program established to supplement existing guidelines and provide recommendations on the management of Parkinson's disease (PD) refractory to oral/transdermal therapies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A large percentage of patients subjected to general anesthesia at 65 years and older exhibit postoperative delirium (POD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Food and Drug Administration–approved information and public advertisements belie neurodegenerative risks for second-generation antipsychotics in affective illness. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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