A mortality risk score derived from MDS data predicted six-month survival in advanced dementia with moderate accuracy. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 22,405
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Hospice enrollment correlates with reduced Medicare expenditures among younger decedents with cancer but increased expenditures among decedents without cancer and those older than 84 years of age. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort
Participants: 245
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
NHs appear to provide less-aggressive end-of-life care to decedents with dementia than to those without. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,261,726
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Extrapolating results to the US population, we estimate that annually nearly a million individuals who are likely eligible for hospice die without its services. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,209
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Most families chose comfort as the primary GOC. 4 key findings →
Participants: 302
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
67/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.
·
BMJ open
·
2018-05-05
Our results demonstrate delirium is a significant marker of mortality among seniors in the ED, and mortality risk is most salient in the first 3 months following an ED visit. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 26
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
We conducted a systematic review of the use of quality of life (QoL) measures as outcome in pharmacological and nonpharmacologic intervention trials in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment or dementia, and their proxies. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Real-world deprescribing patterns of antihypertensives among NH residents with HTN and LLE/AD appear to reflect variation in recommendations for HTN treatment intensity and individualization of patient care in a population with potential overtreatment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 10,574
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Later GOCDs were associated with greater risk of aggressive interventions and death as an inpatient and greater odds of ICU admission. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 197
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Palliative care is related to reduced life-sustaining treatments for patients with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,996
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
A novel method using an EHR phenotype plus brief medical record review is effective to identify hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
In most of the decedents, the course of disability in the last year of life did not follow a predictable pattern based on the condition leading to death. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 65
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Individuals with AD comprise a substantial number of older adult deaths in the United States, a number expected to rise considerably in coming decades. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 10,802
Evidence: moderate
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
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 358
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Persons dying with advanced dementia admitted to nursing homes have different characteristics compared to those admitted to home care services. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 2,730
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Community-based palliative care of people who die with or of dementia is relatively infrequent but associated with significant reductions in hospital emergency department use in the last year of life. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 5,261
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Pre-existing dementia is not independently associated with mortality, disability, or institutionalization after ischemic stroke. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 877
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Enrollees in a comprehensive dementia care comanagement program had high engagement in advance care planning, high rates of hospice use, and low acute care utilization near the end of life. 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort
Participants: 321
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Even though the provision of PC was empirically recognised as a care step in the management of dementia, there are barriers that hinder access of patients with dementia to appropriate facilities. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
BMC geriatrics
·
2014-05-22
The majority of residents were stable in their care dependency status over two subsequent 6-month periods. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
This study has shown the MNA to be a more appropriate nutrition assessment tool for older patients when compared to the SGA. 3 key findings →
Participants: 43
Evidence: low
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 lack of content surrounding grief represents a gap for this population at high risk for complicated grief and chronic sorrow. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
Age and ageing
·
2016-03-24
Residents who died from non-sudden causes between 1 October 2013 and 31 May 2014 in these facilities were included (n = 674). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 674
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
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 27,380 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.