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
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
We recommend development and testing of decision aids targeting the decisions carers report finding most distressing, including those around where people should live, accessing services, and end of life treatments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-four reviews were included, published between 2009 and 2023. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Preliminary findings suggest that some factors may identify those at risk for persistent delirium; however, more research is needed. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Less than half of the nursing home residents (39.2%) had advance directives and most (96.4%) had been completed by family surrogates. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing home residents receiving palliative care are more likely to have a GP order. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pre-post evaluations revealed significant reductions in physical symptoms, psychosocial-spiritual distresses and information insufficiency of patients in the first three months of service. 4 key findings →
Participants: 567 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Educational programs may be useful in reducing racial differences in attitudes towards ACP. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Health and social care professionals can build on people's preferences for informal planning by exploring the assumptions underlying them, providing information about the possible illness trajectory and discussing the options of care available. 1 key finding →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
This small non-randomized study is the first end-of-life care in dementia intervention to report an increase in family satisfaction with a reduction in hospital deaths. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results show that regarding end-of-life preferences for patients, there is moderate agreement between patients and their spouses, but limited evidence for projection of spouses' preferences on patients (i.e. spouse making a prediction based on own wishes). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ABSTRACTBackground:Evidence concerning when and in which manner older people living in nursing homes (NHs) would prefer to discuss advance care planning (ACP) is still scarce. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current evidence base for ACP in dementia is limited. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as "palliative care." 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Several areas of end-of-life care provision could be improved. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome with generalized cognitive impairment and disproportionate inattention. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Benefits of palliative care in dementia are acknowledged by experts worldwide, but there is some controversy around its early introduction. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Educating families and professionals about palliative care is important as many professionals and non-professionals believe that this approach intends to hasten death, instead of affirming life and regarding dying as a normal process. 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