27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 239 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older people who view a video depiction of a patient with advanced dementia after hearing a verbal description of the condition are more likely to opt for comfort as their goal of care compared with those who solely listen to a verbal description. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,350 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
451 (11%) of 4241 beds in ten hospitals were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 118 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review found that withdrawal of preventive medicines at the end of life is challenging. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26,854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patient and caregiver factors contribute to caregiver burden in persons living with PD. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Knowledge of CPR, MV, TF, and self-efficacy to make EOL treatment decisions increased significantly more in the ACT-Plan group at weeks 4 and 20. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 173 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This community-based cluster randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of a 4-week multimedia educational intervention followed by telephone consultations at Weeks 12 and 24 on the selection of a hospice program for end-of-life care and completion of an advance directive (AD) in case of future advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
FCC facilitates a palliative approach to care. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This will be vital in moving to a phase III trial that is pragmatic and feasible for these complex patients within the NHS. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning was effective in reducing family carer uncertainty in decision-making concerning the care of their family member and improving perceptions of quality of care in nursing homes. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specialty palliative care consultation for hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia is feasible and promising to improve decision-making and some treatment outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The methods we used for intervention fidelity allowed nursing home staff to implement a goals of care decision aid intervention for advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 151 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It was difficult for a palliative care research team to influence the care of advanced dementia patients in the acute hospital setting. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 99 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All 23 were able to articulate their end-of-life wishes very or somewhat coherently during the SPIRIT session; of those, 14 PWDs had moderate dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing home staff benefits from this training in shared decision-making. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Family members of persons with advanced dementia may be asked to make complex treatment decisions without having adequate knowledge regarding the risks and benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A Systematic ReviewObstructive sleep apnoea, positive airway pressure treatment and postoperative delirium: protocol for a retrospective observational studyEvidence supporting the best clinical management of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic guideline review and expert consensusDeprescribiendo para mejorar la salud de las personas o cuando deprescribir puede ser la mejor medicinaThe use of proton pump inhibitors among older adults with intellectual disability: A cross sectional observational studyNeed for Comprehensive Health Care Quality Measures for Older AdultsDevelopment and initial validation of prescribing quality indicators for patients with chronic kidney diseaseOlder patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) toolA New Computer-Based Tool to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions in Hospitalized Geriatric PatientsThe Successful Aging After Elective Surgery Study: Cohort Description and Data Quality ProceduresRoutine deprescribing of chronic medications to combat polypharmacyAnnual Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults: Update for NursesThe impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysisAssessing appropriateness of osteoarthritis care using quality indicators: a systematic reviewCurrent Factors of Fragility and Delirium in Vascular SurgeryDrug-related problems identification in general internal medicine: The impact and role of the clinical pharmacist and pharmacologistPrescription of potentially inappropriate drugs for geriatric patients in long-term care: improvement through pharmacist's interventionChanging practice in dementia care in the community: developing and testing evidence-based interventions, from timely diagnosis to end of life (EVIDEM)High Prevalence of Poor Quality Drug Prescribing in Older Individuals: A Nationwide Report From the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)Delirium in elderly peopleDelphi consensus statement: Quality indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Comprehensive Care UnitsPotentiality of STOPP/START criteria used in primary care to effectively change inappropriate prescribing in elderly patientsToo Much to ManageHip Fracture ManagementAppropriateness of Medication Prescribing Using the STOPP/START Criteria in Veterans Receiving Home-Based Primary CareActualización de la neumonía en el ancianoEstablishi 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings support the reliability and validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale for use with older adults with dementia in nursing home settings. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The facilitated approach explored in this study addressed known barriers to case conferencing. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the increased interest in palliative care for patients with dementia there is currently little evidence on which to base such an approach. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An important goal of advance care planning (ACP) is ensuring that patients receive care concordant with their preferences. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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.
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 27,780 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →