Nine cyclical stages were undertaken to achieve the outcome of an ACP guide and template. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Despite growing understanding in recent years of the biological, psychological, social, environmental and spiritual aspects of dementia, people with advanced dementia continue to experience inequalities in accessing healthcare capable of improving their lives. 5 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
I review ethical and legal challenges for end of life (EOL) care in dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NPs care for patients with chronic diseases such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is the leading cause of death in England and Wales, but traditionally it has not been considered a terminal or life-limiting condition. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because of the rapidly growing older population and increases in longevity, rates of dementia have been rising. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
39/100
Dementia and Parkinson's disease are incurable neurological conditions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
39/100
Four themes regarding caring for PWD in hospice. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Authors extracted 569 tools from articles, retaining seven tools for evaluation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-four studies were identified and confirmed that patients with dementia frequently resort to the ED near the end of life, frequently more than once in their last year of life. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analysis yielded three categories and nine subcategories describing surrogate decision-making practices regarding end-of-life care for people with dementia: (a) typical circumstances of end-of-life care planning, (b) expected roles of key personnel and related challenges and (c) important considerations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The implementation of a transmural model of early palliative care for patients with advanced dementia requires the coordination between clinicians in the tertiary care setting and community, together with health information technologists. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest the LEAD intervention is feasible and demonstrates initial efficacy in promoting dementia-focused ACP. 3 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the dementia scenario, 26.9% of participants preferred unlimited medical treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
38/100
The lack of valid and reliable instruments designed to measure the experiences of older persons with advanced dementia and those of their health care proxies has limited palliative care research for this condition. 2 key findings →
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 review of the literature disclosed that research on the experience of dying is limited; most of the studies have been conducted in acute care hospitals among people who were dying of cancer. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
People with dementia often fail to receive palliative care, despite increased recognition of their need and eligibility for such care. 2 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
Palliative medicine is a specialty that focuses on improving the quality of life for patients with serious or advanced medical conditions, and it is appropriate at any stage of disease, including at the time of diagnosis. 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
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
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 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.
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 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 →