72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2013-10-03
Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to test the impact of Function-Focused Care for the Cognitively Impaired Intervention on nursing home residents with dementia and the nursing assistants who care for them. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 103
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2013-01-20
Two thirds (66%) of adult child caregivers in the control condition admitted their parent to a residential care setting compared with 37% in the treatment condition. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2021-07-01
Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 159
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2020-09-01
Our search identified a total of 2,824 citations, following screening for duplicates and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, five studies were included for analysis. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,824
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2002-06-01
The combined interventions produced a significant improvement of 0.14 to 0.41 standard deviation units, on average, for caregiver burden, depression, subjective well-being, perceived caregiver satisfaction, ability/knowledge, and care receiver symptoms. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2013-09-05
Purpose of the study During aging, musical activities can help maintain physical and mental health and cognitive abilities, but their rehabilitative use has not been systematically explored in persons with dementia (PWDs). 1 key finding →
Participants: 30
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2018-03-19
Adult children receiving the NYUCI-AC completed a mean of 5.19 individual and family counseling sessions; it took on average a little over 11 months to do so. 5 key findings →
Participants: 54
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2001-02-01
Purpose of study The authors determined short-term effects of a home environmental intervention on self-efficacy and upset in caregivers and daily function of dementia patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 171
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2020-11-01
Intervention participants with MCI self-reported, or demonstrated, improved functioning across a range of cognitive (global cognitive function, executive function, processing speed, memory, attention, mood, emotion, motivation, brain cortex, orientation), and physical (gait, balance, mobility) outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2003-10-01
Significant main effects in the expected direction were found for changes in most of these measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 169
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
1999-06-01
This 3-year randomized clinical trial tested the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary psychoeducational family group intervention in decreasing the caregivers' perceptions of the frequency and severity of behavioral problems in persons with dementia and their reactions to those problems, and in decreasing caregiver burden and depression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2021-09-01
Because technology is developing at a fast pace, the aim of this review was to present an overview of the research regarding the effectiveness of these solutions. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2015-11-05
Thirty-one studies describing 21 delirium screening tools were included in the systematic review. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
62/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2020-11-01
Interventions had, on average, a significant, small-to-moderate effect on the improvement of ability/knowledge, subjective well-being, burden, depression, and the caregiver's anxiety as well as symptoms of the care recipient. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
62/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2005-10-01
Stress was more often reported by care providers who had been working for 1 to 2 years (compared with longer); in addition, those who had been working for 1 to 2 years were more likely to espouse hopeful or person-centered attitudes than those who had been working for a longer period of time. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2019-09-01
Fifty-three studies were included in the narrative synthesis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2005-12-01
Those who viewed Caregiver's Friend: Dealing with Dementia 30 days postexposure demonstrated significant improvements in depression, anxiety, level and frequency of stress, caregiver strain, self-efficacy, and intention to seek help, as well as perceptions of positive aspects of caregiving. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
59/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2014-03-31
Controlling for pretest, the benefit-finding group had lower depression than the psychoeducation group at post-test, despite the fact that some caregivers found benefit-finding challenging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
59/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2002-12-01
The finding that perceived social support is strongly related to well-being but unrelated to burden reinforces the conceptual distinctiveness of the latter two concepts. 3 key findings →
Participants: 243
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
58/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2016-04-21
Two themes were developed from 12 studies: caregiver needs related to the management of older people with dementia and caregivers' personal needs. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
58/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2012-10-15
MBSR was more effective at improving overall mental health, reducing stress, and decreasing depression than CCES. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
58/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2019-09-01
Three themes emerged from 29 included studies: self-care needs and behaviors of ICGs, barriers to performing self-care, and enablers of self-care. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
1997-06-01
This study provides a review and analysis of the empirical research published since 1985 that has examined the impact of race, culture, and/or ethnicity on the dementia caregiving experience. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2021-04-03
Yet, the association became not significant after controlling for individual physical function. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 199
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2020-09-01
Relative to white caregivers, blacks more often provided in excess of 40 hr of care per week (54.3% vs 38.6%) and more often cared for an older adult with dementia (27.1% vs 20.7%) who was living below the federal poverty line (31.7% vs 11.9%) or was Medicaid-eligible (42.2% vs 11.8%). 1 key finding →
Participants: 992
Evidence: low
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.