ArticlePloS one2024
Study protocol for the Functional Communication Checklist for people living with primary progressive aphasia.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Care Partner Perceptions of Conversation Difficulties, Strategy Use, and Psychosocial Impacts in Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Descriptive Study Using the PCI-DAT.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- The Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit (PACT): A Strengths-Based Approach to Multidomain Evaluation for Intervention.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Picture Description and Functional Communication Rating Correlates in Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia.Aphasiology · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor Response to: Is Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Really Beneficial for Frontotemporal Dementia? (Published 12-18-2024).Journal of central nervous system disease · 2025Article
- The Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit (PACT): a strengths-based approach to multidomain evaluation for intervention.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study protocol describes the development of the first instrument of functional communication for people living with primary progressive aphasia (PPA), with future applications to other progressive conditions, with expert validation, item-level reliability analyses, input from partners in research, and outcomes. Progressive conditions like PPA require monitoring, and as such, re-assessment. Re-assessment poses the high risk of being burdensome, destructive, and of little use to the patient. As such, there is a significant need to establish a validated and reliable measure that (1) poses minimal patient burden and (2) captures communication ability in a strengths-based manner for both clinical and research purposes. A strengths-based approach to assessment is widely recognized as the optimal way to promote patient autonomy, minimize harm, and implement functional treatment protocols and strategies. To date, there are no strengths-based assessment tools that were developed for people living with PPA nor ways to efficiently document functional communication performance. This study protocol outlines our work to address this gap in clinical practice and research.
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.