Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 56 studies in End-of-life care published 2018 (page 1 of 3) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 56 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “End-of-life care” covers

End-of-life care — Hospice, palliative care and end-of-life decision-making for people living with dementia.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

The mean age of the 402 study residents was 86.7 years [range, 67-102 years]; 350 were white (87.1%) and 323 were female (80.3%), with DNH directives that by 6 months did not differ between arms (63% in both arms; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.69). 1 key finding →

Participants: 212 Evidence: high

Better alignment between preferences for comfort-focused care and advance directives is needed in advanced dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 328 Evidence: high

Triggered Palliative Care for Late-Stage Dementia: A Pilot Randomized Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 2018-10-18

Specialty palliative care consultation for hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia is feasible and promising to improve decision-making and some treatment outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

Surgical repair of a hip fracture was associated with lower mortality among NH residents with advanced dementia and should be considered together with the residents' goals of care in management decisions. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,441 Evidence: moderate

Cohort Profile Update: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. International Journal of Epidemiology 2018-07-14

As outlined in the original cohort profile,1 The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) is a prospective cohort study designed to provide an evidence base for addressing the challenges and opportunities associated with population ageing in Ireland. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,525 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Fecal Incontinence in Home Hospice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. The American journal of hospice & palliative care 2018-06-24

Further studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors for FI detection and its symptom management in this patient population. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,314 Evidence: moderate

Unrecognized Cardiovascular Emergencies Among Medicare Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2018-04-01

There were 1 561 940 patients, including 17 963 hospitalized for ruptured AAA, 304 980 for AMI, 1 181 648 for stroke, 19 675 for aortic dissection, and 37 674 for SAH. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 940 Evidence: moderate

Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Estimating the survival of elderly patients diagnosed with dementia in Taiwan: A longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. PloS one 2018-07-25

The survival prediction model demonstrated moderate accuracy for predicting mortality at 6 and 12 months before death in elderly patients with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 37,289 Evidence: moderate

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

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

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

Five hundred and forty five patients from 67 NH units were included and randomized to the intervention ( N = 297; 36 units) and control group ( N = 248; 31 units). 5 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: high

The studies indicated the importance of funding, provision and organization of services/personnel, education, and cooperation among different support systems. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Inpatient PCC reduces 30-day readmissions and inpatient mortality with the greatest impact demonstrated within six days of hospital admission. 2 key findings →

Participants: 43,463 Evidence: low

Further guidelines should be developed to help clinicians to promptly refer terminal cancer and non-cancer patients to hospice care. 5 key findings →

Participants: 8,459 Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed