alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 226–250 of 470 studies matching “delirium” (page 10 of 19) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 470 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Understanding rehabilitation and support needs after an episode of delirium: a qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with older people with delirium, family carers and healthcare professionals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-07-26

Several interconnected themes were identified as potential resources that enable recovery from delirium: (a) social contact and recovery of social lives; (b) the need for information, support, and education; (c) personalisation and personhood; (d) relationship continuity with professional carers; (e) the experience and involvement of carers; and (f) treating the cause and healthy lifestyle. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Delirium: an urgent health priority in Australian hospitals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Public Health Research & Practice 2026-05-26

Delirium is a common health problem with serious and long-lasting health consequences that disproportionately affects vulnerable population groups (especially older people with dementia or frailty). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Systemic inflammation induces acute working memory deficits in the primed brain: relevance for delirium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-05-14

Delirium is an acute, severe neuropsychiatric syndrome, characterized by cognitive deficits, that is highly prevalent in aging and dementia and is frequently precipitated by peripheral infections. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Effect of postoperative delirium on outcome after hip fracture

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2004-05-01

Nine-hundred twenty-one community-dwelling patients 65 years of age or older, who sustained an operatively treated hip fracture from July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1998 were followed up for the development of postoperative delirium. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

CogChamps: impact of a project to educate nurses about delirium and improve the quality of care for hospitalized patients with cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. BMC Health Services Research 2018-07-09

Observational and audit data were collected for 181 patients (average age = 82.5 years) across the two hospitals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 181 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Effectiveness of the In-Hospital Information Technology System-Based Delirium Management Intervention Program in Medically Hospitalized Patients with Dementia: A Retrospective Case–Control Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 2025-10-01

The intervention group showed a significantly lower delirium incidence (34% versus 18%, p =0.010) and earlier detection of delirium after hospitalization (3.2 versus 2.2 days, p =0.035). 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Causality between Alzheimer disease and delirium: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study and gene colocalization analyses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Medicine 2026-01-30

To evaluate the possible causality between Alzheimer disease (AD) and delirium, a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) method and gene colocalization strategy were employed. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Content validity, practicality and testing of the reliability of various tools for the detection and screening of delirium in residents with dementia in German nursing homes: a study protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-12-01

Although individuals with dementia who reside in nursing homes are particularly susceptible to developing delirium, this condition is rarely recognised in these settings. 1 key finding →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Confusion: delirium and dementia - a smartphone app to improve cognitive assessment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. BMJ quality improvement reports 2015-01-21

Older patients with dementia and delirium are more prone to adverse events in hospital, but formal cognitive assessment to identify these vulnerable patients on admission is often not carried out by junior doctors. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Consequences of not recognizing delirium superimposed on dementia in hospitalized elderly individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of gerontological nursing 2000-01-01

The purpose of this study was to describe the recognition and management of delirium in hospitalized patients with and without dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Urinary tract infection‐related delirium in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Clinical challenges and translational opportunities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-02-01

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) affects millions of patients worldwide and is a leading cause of morbidity in older adults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Requesting That Delirium Achieve Parity With Acute Encephalopathy in the MS-DRG System

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry 2024-03-20

Since 2007, the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups classification system has favored billing codes for acute encephalopathy over delirium codes in determining hospital reimbursement and several quality-of-care value metrics, despite broad overlap between these sets of diagnostic codes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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