ReviewBrain sciences2026
Writing Abilities in Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Scoping Literature Review.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the central role of writing and typing in contemporary communication, integrating writing assessments into clinical practice is crucial for improving the diagnosis and management of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). This scoping review summarizes evidence on writing abilities in PPA, examining task types, their strengths and limitations, the linguistic features of stimuli, and the influence of language differences.
methodsA literature search was conducted using the Google Scholar and PubMed databases. We included papers published in peer-reviewed journals and written in English that present data from at least one PPA subject and report a quantitative score relative to a writing task. Fifty-one studies were included (forty-seven behavioral; four with neuroimaging).
resultsOverall, the literature is fragmented, with marked variability in task design and the control of psycholinguistic variables. Writing to dictation is the most frequently used task but fails to capture the full spectrum of writing impairments, whereas tasks tapping lexico-semantic, morpho-syntactic, and discourse-level abilities are rarely employed. At the syndromic description level, svPPA typically shows surface dysgraphia, nfvPPA presents phonological dysgraphia and agrammatic writing, and lvPPA displays mixed error profiles. Neuroimaging findings are highly heterogeneous.
conclusionsThe review underscores the need for systematic, linguistically grounded approaches to writing assessments in PPA to enhance diagnostic precision and cross-linguistic comparability.
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.