ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Tools and Methods for Diagnosing Developmental Dysgraphia in the Digital Age: A State of the Art.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative analysis of handwriting kinematics in primary and lower secondary school children through a sensorized ink pen: A cross-sectional population-based study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Immunotherapy-associated dysgraphia as an early neurocognitive manifestation of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome: clinical characteristics, mechanistic insights, and assessment challenges.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- [The application of machine learning in the auxiliary diagnosis of specific learning disorder].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2025Review
- AI-driven approaches for dysgraphia diagnosis using online and offline handwriting data: A comprehensive scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- DysDiTect: Dyslexia Identification Using CNN-Positional-LSTM-Attention Modeling with Chinese Dictation Task.Brain sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Handwriting is a complex perceptual motor task that requires years of training and practice before complete mastery. Its acquisition is crucial, since handwriting is the basis, together with reading, of the acquisition of higher-level skills such as spelling, grammar, syntax, and text composition. Despite the correct learning and practice of handwriting, some children never master this skill to a sufficient level. These handwriting deficits, referred to as developmental dysgraphia, can seriously impact the acquisition of other skills and thus the academic success of the child if they are not diagnosed and handled early. In this review, we present a non-exhaustive listing of the tools that are the most reported in the literature for the analysis of handwriting and the diagnosis of dysgraphia. A variety of tools focusing on either the final handwriting product or the handwriting process are described here. On one hand, paper-and-pen tools are widely used throughout the world to assess handwriting quality and/or speed, but no universal gold-standard diagnostic test exists. On the other hand, several very promising computerized tools for the diagnosis of dysgraphia have been developed in the last decade, but some improvements are required before they can be available to clinicians. Based on these observations, we will discuss the pros and cons of the existing tools and the perspectives related to the development of a universal, standardized test of dysgraphia combining both paper-and-pen and computerized approaches and including different graphomotor and writing tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.