Where appropriate, we undertook subgroup analysis by modality (individual versus group), number of sessions and frequency, setting (community versus care home), type of control condition and dementia severity. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 37
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,236
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 516
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. 4 key findings →
Participants: 3,232
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Main results Nine studies (from eight published reports) of 5149 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (however defined) were included in the review. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 5,149
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, to be the first line pharmacotherapy for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Galantamine is a specific, competitive, and reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,805
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Main results Effect of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine for 20 mg/day on cognition (MD: 6.1. 95% CI 2.99 to 9.21, P=0.0001) activities of daily living (MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.74, p=0.01) and in the global clinical impression of change measured by the CIBIC-Plus at 28 weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02, p=0.04), in all cases the analysis was the ITT-LOCF population (Reisberg 2000). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Patients taking memantine were slightly less likely to develop agitation (134/1739, 7.7% versus 175/1873, 9.3% OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99, P = 0.04). 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Analysis included patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic, compared with placebo Main results Sixteen placebo controlled trials have been completed with atypical antipsychotics although only nine had sufficient data to contribute to a meta-analysis and only five have been published in full in peer reviewed journals. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
We included 22 studies involving 43,637 women. 5 key findings →
Participants: 22
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials where the participants had PDD or PD-MCI, and where the intervention was intended to train general or specific areas of cognitive function, targeting either a single domain or multiple domains of cognition, and was compared to a control condition. 5 key findings →
Participants: 225
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Main results Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 6,041
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
In clinical samples, people with amnestic MCI are at high risk of developing Alzheimer's disease dementia, with annual rates of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's disease estimated at approximately 10% to 15% compared with the base incidence rates of Alzheimer's disease dementia of 1% to 2% per year. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 33
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which cognitive training via interactive computerised technology was compared with an active or inactive control intervention. 5 key findings →
Participants: 660
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 9,422
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Main results We included 82 studies with 10,613 participants; 72 studies with 9783 participants provided extractable data. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 10,613
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Alzheimer's disease sufferers have been found to have a lack of the enzyme responsible for converting choline into acetylcholine within the brain. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 265
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
It is associated with increases in mortality, physical morbidity, length of hospital stay, institutionalisation and costs to healthcare providers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 833
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. 4 key findings →
Participants: 28
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
¹⁸F-FDFG uptake by brain tissue as measured by positron emission tomography (PET) is a well-established method for assessment of brain function in people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 14
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Where feasible, we combined data to obtain an overall estimate of effect. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Overall estimates of treatment effect were calculated using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured using a standard Chi(2) statistic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Main results Four trials including 15,936 hypertensive subjects were identified. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
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.