Main results Two RCTs and one controlled before-and-after study were included (735 participants). 3 key findings →
Participants: 735 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.
Patients with advanced dementia often receive poor end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 33 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
Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies had a higher percentage of patients with diagnoses associated with lower-skilled needs and longer lengths of stay. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,705 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
These findings underscore the complexity of the hospice patient population and highlight a potential need to risk adjust the per diem hospice reimbursement rates to account for increased resource requirements for hospices serving patients with higher comorbidity burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 27,166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the elderly, prestroke dementia is a powerful independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after acute reperfusion therapy for stroke. 2 key findings →
Participants: 153 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dual hospice/SNF access may result in fewer hospital deaths and higher quality of life for dying NH residents. 3 key findings →
Participants: 99,370 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medicare expenditures among nursing home residents with advanced dementia vary substantially. 4 key findings →
Participants: 323 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 70 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The booklet is suitable to inform Dutch and Canadian families on comfort care in dementia, but implementation in Italy requires further consideration. 3 key findings →
Participants: 138 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four themes were identified: Making the transition; Competence challenged; 'The long view' and Working together. 4 key findings →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study shows that an intensive educational training and adaptation on non-invasive ventilation, when performed in a hospital multidisciplinary setting, increases compliance and tolerance over time, even in those patients with severe bulbar impairment. 2 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on the perceptions of bereaved family members, important opportunities exist to improve decision-making in feeding tube insertion. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bereaved family members of people with dementia who received hospice reported higher perceptions of the quality of care and quality of dying. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current evidence base for ACP in dementia is limited. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Until relatively recently, most psychologists have had limited professional involvement with older adults. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The quality of end-of-life care exists on a continuum across care settings. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Design qualitative exploration of views from care home staff and the family of residents in care homes for older people. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The staff require education and support about discussing and implementing plans around care at the end of life in dementia and about cultural issues around death to improve practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance directives for euthanasia are never adhered to in the Netherlands in the case of people with advanced dementia, and their role in advance care planning and end-of-life care of people with advanced dementia is limited. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Instruments that assess quality when dying differ in several ways and most do not measure a single construct, which is relevant to guiding and evaluating care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
One in three adults over the age of 60 years will die with dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome with generalized cognitive impairment and disproportionate inattention. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
In 2009, nearly 66 million Americans (three in 10 U.S. households) reported at least one person providing unpaid care as a family caregiver. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Inhibition of phosphodiesterase 9 (PDE9) has been reported to enhance rodent cognitive function and may represent a potential novel approach to improving cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. 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 →