Cochrane · systematic review · CD015067
Non‐pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia
Roheger, M, Riemann, S, Brauer, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
Dementia and Cognitive ImprovementAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
25
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
11
Included studies
NR
No studies 11 · 44%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 14 · 56%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) versus sham tDCS for adults with PPA
Population: adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Word retrieval Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham tDCS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall language abilities Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham tDCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 15 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall cognitive assessment Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham tDCS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham tDCS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs sham tDCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 15 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training versus sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training for adults with PPA
Population: adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Word retrieval Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 93 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall language abilities Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall cognitive assessment Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Active tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training versus sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training for adults with PPA
Population: adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Word retrieval Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 6 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall language abilities Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall cognitive assessment Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Active tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus phonological word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 6 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training versus sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training for adults with PPA
Population: adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Word retrieval Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 3 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall language abilities Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall cognitive assessment Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Active tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training vs sham tDCS plus semantic word‐retrieval training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 3 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) versus active control‐site rTMS for adults with primary progressive aphasia
Population: adults with primary progressive aphasia (PPA)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Word retrieval Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs active control‐site rTMS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall language abilities Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs active control‐site rTMS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overall cognitive assessment Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs active control‐site rTMS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs active control‐site rTMS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) vs active control‐site rTMS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |