451 (11%) of 4241 beds in ten hospitals were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 118 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.
Residents' mean age was 86.5 years, 39 (12.9%) were African American, and 246 (81.5%) were women. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most proxies select comfort as the preferred level of care for NH residents with advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 402 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review found that withdrawal of preventive medicines at the end of life is challenging. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26,854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
FCC facilitates a palliative approach to care. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a need for more high-quality outcome studies, particularly using randomized designs to control for confounding. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning was effective in reducing family carer uncertainty in decision-making concerning the care of their family member and improving perceptions of quality of care in nursing homes. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ED attendance in the last year of life for people with dementia is common and is increasing. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,867 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with dementia are significantly more likely to be disenrolled from hospice following a long enrollment period compared with patients without dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 149,814 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a dearth of good-quality evidence investigating the cancer-dementia prevalence and its implications for successful cancer treatment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
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
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
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
Respiratory distress escalated in the last days. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 91 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients continue to receive medications that are not prescribed as symptomatic treatment despite having a LLE. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 1084 patients who completed the questionnaire, 415 (38.3%) had heard about ACP/ADs. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,084 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regular health status updates and end of life discussions can help families understand dementia progression and prepare for end of life. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The upward hospital death trend and fact that being married are risk factors for hospital death suggest that a reliance on hospitals may coexist with a tradition of extended family support. 4 key findings →
Participants: 738,566 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Whilst nursing home managers recognise the potential benefits of advance care planning, barriers and challenges create a reluctance to facilitate. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 178 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Approximately one-third of the Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2011 had four or more transitions within their last 6 months of life. 3 key findings →
Participants: 660,132 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings are consistent with reports that care homes can provide care akin to hospice for the very old and support an approach of supporting residents to stay in their care home or own home if possible. 3 key findings →
Participants: 180 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study indicates the need to provide nurses and nursing assistants with more information about palliative care practice for people with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings support need for greater ACP discussions between patients and proxies. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 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 →