These data indicate the high symptom burden of persons with dementia in Germany at the end of their lives. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The most common place of death in patients with dementia is the retirement or nursing home, followed by hospital and home. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 10,364 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alive PWD (n = 804) were 2.36 times more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (p = 0.004) and 1.96 times more likely to have multiple hospitalizations when caregivers found it physically difficult to provide care (p = 0.011). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 899 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies had a higher percentage of patients with diagnoses associated with lower-skilled needs and longer lengths of stay. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,705 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning (ACP) can help reduce end-of-life care challenges for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia and their care partners. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To explore people's intentions to opt for a good death when planning for their end-of-life care, this study examined the type of end-of-life care preferred by patients receiving advance care planning (ACP) consulting services for five specified clinical and disability conditions and possible factors affecting their decision-making. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,303 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
These findings underscore the complexity of the hospice patient population and highlight a potential need to risk adjust the per diem hospice reimbursement rates to account for increased resource requirements for hospices serving patients with higher comorbidity burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 27,166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 1084 patients who completed the questionnaire, 415 (38.3%) had heard about ACP/ADs. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,084 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recording of a palliative care approach for non-cancer conditions has increased since the introduction of the UK End-of-Life Care Strategy, but remains inadequate. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,426 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The late initiation of palliative care (especially when advance care planning is lacking) and palliative care for residents without cancer, dementia or closely involved relatives deserve attention in all countries. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study revealed a higher prevalence of treatment preference discussions and surrogate appointments in the two northern compared to the two southern European countries. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,396 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results highlight the need to integrate palliative care with optimal disease management in primary practice and to initiate advance care planning early in the chronic disease trajectory to enable all patients to live as well as possible with progressive illness and die with dignity and comfort. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,491 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Feeding tube use is significantly more common in Blacks than in Whites. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,920 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ADRQL is a valid indicator of QOL in NH residents with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Physician-delivered palliative care. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics characterizing physician-delivered palliative care. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18,452 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Direct measurement of prevalence of palliative care needs on a population basis is feasible. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 785 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings of this study suggest that concurrent with new initiatives aimed at reducing hospitalizations, hospital transfers declined between 2011 and 2017 among nursing home residents with advanced illnesses without increased mortality rates. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary results suggest that hospice enrolment might be influenced by the facility or region of this particular country. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prognostic discussions between caregivers of PwD and the PwD's physicians may be occurring more often; however, a high percentage of caregivers report a poor understanding about the terminal nature of dementia and the role of PC. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The accuracy of substituted judgments is associated with multiple clinically apparent patient and surrogate factors. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 250 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Whilst nursing home managers recognise the potential benefits of advance care planning, barriers and challenges create a reluctance to facilitate. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 178 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this retrospective, cross-sectional study was to determine the prevalence of advance care planning (ACP) among older people presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) from the community or a residential aged care facility. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/100
A high level of drug utilization, influenced by the characteristics of residents and the institution, was observed in Belgian nursing homes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,510 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
People continue to receive disease-focused therapies at the end of life rather than therapies exclusively for palliation of symptoms, suggesting that treatments may vary according to the person's primary diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,623 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →