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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Most veterans with LLE/AD taking statins for secondary prevention do not discontinue statins following CLC admission. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13,110 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Florbetaben scans were assessed visually and quantitatively, and results were compared with amyloid plaque scores. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 82 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, patients with advanced dementia and hip fracture or pneumonia had a very poor prognosis. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Whilst palliative care is appropriate for elderly patients with chronic, non-malignant disease, few of these patients access such care compared with cancer patients. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our aim was to review systematically the effectiveness of ACP interventions in people with cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Gatekeeping is motivated by the general assumption of vulnerability of patients, coupled with an emphasis on the duty to protect patients. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Questionably beneficial medications are common in advanced dementia, even as death approaches. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BFC80+ was designed to acquire a better understanding of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of chronic diseases in the very elderly and to study the dynamic interaction between health, frailty and disability in a multi-system approach. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite much data, we lack a unifying guideline for dementia prognostication. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three-year survival after dementia diagnosis can be predicted with good accuracy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50,076 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature concerning place of death of people with dementia and the preferences for location of death of people with dementia as well as family carers and healthcare providers preferred location of death for patients with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caring for people with dementia in primary care demands the same systematic approach as the management of other long-term conditions. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
64/100
Older adults at the end of life receive a high number of hours of help at the end of life, many from more than one caregiver, which may shape hospice access. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,868 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The experiences and preparedness of informal carers is a reflection of their personal response, but the distress experienced highlights the significant need of adequate support availability and of enhancing nursing staffs' dementia expertise to maximize their role in facilitating best interest decision-making. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Successful strategies from other disciplines could be considered by palliative care researchers. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the relationship between ethnic minority status and provision of end-of-life care for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Issues with eating and drinking are often overlooked. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The most common place of death in patients with dementia is the retirement or nursing home, followed by hospital and home. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 10,364 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current pharmacological therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes the cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 77 papers reviewed, few addressed early stages of dementia specifically. 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 →