When an individual has dementia, family members are involved in many care transitions in their roles as caregivers. 1 key finding →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
End-of-life care for people with dementia does not differ from care throughout the dementia trajectory. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GPs are identifying patients for anticipatory and palliative care more equitably across the different disease trajectories and earlier in the disease process than they were previously identifying patients specifically for palliative care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Physicians often withhold potentially burdensome life-prolonging treatment in nursing home residents in all stages of dementia in the Netherlands. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Interdisciplinary Care Leader role offers a promising method for supporting and improving end-of-life care discussions between families of people with advanced dementia and nursing home staff. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The general practitioner (GP) is in a pivotal position to initiate and adapt care for their patients living with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When planning an improvement project in PC, services should pay particular attention to factors associated with their chosen implementation strategy. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four broad areas were identified as requiring complex decisions at the end of life; 1) eating/swallowing difficulties, 2) agitation/restlessness, 3) ending life-sustaining treatment, and 4) providing "routine care" at the end of life. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most HCWs recognised a need for palliative care for people with PD; however several barriers to implementing a palliative care approach in this population need to be addressed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with multiple serious conditions account for a high proportion of health care spending. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The number of people in their last years of life with advanced chronic conditions, palliative care needs, and limited life prognosis due to different causes including multi-morbidity, organ failure, frailty, dementia, and cancer is rising. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
Surrogate decision-making on behalf of a person living with dementia is often a difficult process. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
'We DECide' had a positive influence on advance care planning policy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
Despite increasing attention given to dementia by international governments and policy makers, the focus of end of life care has been on the dying trajectory of malignant disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings reveal several different views on what is important about end-of-life care for people with dementia; therefore, a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to care is unlikely to be most appropriate. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a life-limiting disease without curative treatments but the data suggest that advanced dementia is not viewed as a terminal diagnosis by physicians. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a life-limiting condition that is largely a disease of ageing. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although 80% of the deaths worldwide occur in middle- and low-income countries such as India, there is less awareness of end-of-life care (EOLC) for people with chronic, serious, progressive, or advanced life-limiting illnesses, including dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article, the second of two, provides healthcare practitioners with an overview of best practice in palliative and end-of-life care, including nutrition, hydration, oral hygiene and pain management. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Since the Liverpool Care Pathway has been withdrawn in the UK, clinicians supporting the palliative needs of patients have faced further challenges, particularly for patients with dementia who are unable to go to a hospice owing to challenging behaviours. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings indicate the possible need for increased support for caregivers, including educational interventions targeting pain etiology and assessment, and improved communication with health-care professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite intensive research efforts over the past few decades, the mechanisms underlying the etiology of sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) remain unknown. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ESPEN Guideline on Ethical Aspects of Artificial Nutrition and Hydration is focused on the adult patient and provides a critical summary for physicians and caregivers. 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
- 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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