Background: Acquired brain injury (ABI) often causes long-lasting impairments in written language and handwriting that limit autonomy and daily functioning. Despite their relevance, these deficits have received limited research attention compared with spoken language disorders. The present work aims to systematically review interventions designed to improve reading, writing, and handwriting abilities in individuals with ABI. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, PubMed, American Psychological Association (APA) PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 1 November 2025. Eligible studies were randomized or non-randomized clinical trials (non-RCTs) involving adults or adolescents with ABI and documented written language impairments. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool (RCTs) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions tool (non-RCTs). Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria (2 RCTs, 10 non-RCTs), all conducted in post-stroke populations, highlighting the absence of evidence from other ABI aetiologies. Three main intervention categories emerged: (1) Behavioral treatments, which consistently improved trained spelling and functional writing, with some advantages for errorless learning in maintaining gains. (2) Technology-assisted approaches, including assistive software, digital spelling aids, and handwriting-focused programs, which showed feasibility, high usability, and improvements in accuracy, legibility, and motor fluency. (3) Neuromodulation, with one RCT showing that dual-site transcranial direct current stimulation can modestly enhance behavioral writing therapy. Most non-RCTs showed serious or critical risk of bias, and sample sizes were small, limiting generalizability. Discussion: Current evidence—although preliminary and restricted to post-stroke ABI—indicates that behavioral, technological, and neuromodulatory interventions can improve aspects of written language and handwriting after ABI. However, the available literature is characterized by small samples, substantial methodological variability, and a paucity of standardized and ecologically valid outcome measures. High-quality, adequately powered trials with standardized, functional outcomes are urgently needed, particularly in non-stroke ABI populations.
Lazzari et al. (Fri,) studied this question.