No high-quality guidelines are available for ACP in dementia care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
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.
Quality of life is dramatically affected in advanced PD patients. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Urinary incontinence (UI) is a debilitating and embarrassing condition that is prevalent among aging males and females. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Of 411 participants, 57% had high illness burden. 5 key findings →
Participants: 349 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Study results highlight a critical need for better prognostic counseling and education for persons and families living with DLB. 4 key findings →
Participants: 658 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After controlling for comorbidities, treated AD patients have better survival, lower institutionalization, and sometimes fewer resource utilizations, suggesting that treatment and improved care management could be beneficial for newly-diagnosed AD patients from economic and clinical perspectives. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AD-HHK-S included 28 true/false items assessing 3 areas of knowledge: knowledge about hospice, knowledge about home hospice, and knowledge about home hospice for AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The quality of dying and quality of end-of-life care in nursing homes in the countries studied are not optimal. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Key mechanisms of action were: improved observation and awareness of residents, collaborative assessment, comprehensive 'picture of the person', systematic record keeping, improved review and monitoring, care planning and changes to care provision, and facilitated multi-agency communication. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The changing dynamics over a 20-year period of this palliative care programme in Kerala, India, highlights the need for similar programmes to remain flexible and adapt their services in response to a growing global burden of Non Communicable Diseases. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty respondents identified themselves as music therapists currently working with clients receiving PEOLC. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ACP is facilitated by an open relationship based on trust between the GP, the person with dementia and his/her family caregiver, in which both medical and non-medical issues are addressed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frailty and sarcopenia have recently gained considerable attention in terms of preventive care in Japan, which has an ever-increasing aging population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings indicate that healthcare professionals experienced several structural barriers that prevented the provision of palliative care to people with severe dementia in long-term care facilities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This unique study has confirmed the relevance of much of the content of existing end of life frameworks to dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Integrated Memory Care Clinic (IMCC) is a patient-centered medical home as defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance directed by advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) caring for persons living with dementia (PLWD); physicians provide specialty consultation but do not direct care or care planning. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, we found an early warning score algorithm focused on deterioration prevention did not account for long-term management or palliative care trajectories. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Improved and earlier advanced care planning for persons with dementia and their caregivers can help delineate goals of care and prepare for the inevitable complications of end-stage dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although not all settings currently require attention to the principles described, this article proposes these principles as best practice recommendations. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evidence about the role the designed and built environment plays in supporting individuals living with dementia has been steadily mounting for almost 40 years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review highlights the need to integrate trauma-informed practices into hospice and palliative care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults with cognitive impairment face many healthcare challenges, chief among them participating in medical decision-making about their own health care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the advanced stages of illness, patients often face challenging decisions regarding their treatment and overall medical care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Palliative care services would benefit from ensuring holistic approaches to supporting people with dementia, their carers and wider family networks. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
However, even though neurodegenerative dementia results in the gradual loss of decision-making capacity, ACP is still extremely rare. 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 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