PurposeDespite having distinct etiologies, acquired apraxia of speech (AOS) and childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) share the same central diagnostic challenge (i.e., isolating markers specific to an impairment in speech motor planning/programming). The purpose of this review was to evaluate and compare the state of the evidence on approaches to differential diagnosis for AOS and CAS and to identify gaps in each literature that could provide directions for future research aimed to improve clinical diagnosis of these disorders.MethodWe conducted a scoping review of literature published between 1997 and 2019, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. For both AOS and CAS, literature was charted and summarized around four main methodological approaches to diagnosis: speech symptoms, quantitative speech measures, impaired linguistic–motor processes, and neuroimaging.ResultsResults showed that similar methodological approaches have been used to study differential diagnosis of apraxia of speech in adults and children; however, the specific measures that have received the most research attention differ between AOS and CAS. Several promising candidate markers for AOS and CAS have been identified; however, few studies report metrics that can be used to assess their diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionsOver the past two decades, there has been a proliferation of research identifying potential diagnostic markers of AOS and CAS. In order to improve clinical diagnosis of AOS and CAS, there is a need for studies testing the diagnostic accuracy of multiple candidate markers, better control over language impairment comorbidity, more inclusion of speech-disordered control groups, and an increased focus on translational work moving toward clinical implementation of promising measures.

中文翻译：

---

儿童和成人言语失用症的鉴别诊断：范围界定综述

目的尽管病因不同，但获得性言语失用症 (AOS) 和儿童言语失用症 (CAS) 具有相同的核心诊断挑战（即，分离言语运动规划/编程损伤的特异性标记）。本综述的目的是评估和比较 AOS 和 CAS 鉴别诊断方法的证据状况，并找出每篇文献中的差距，为旨在改善这些疾病临床诊断的未来研究提供方向。方法我们遵循系统评价的首选报告项目和范围界定审查的荟萃分析扩展指南，对 1997 年至 2019 年间发表的文献进行了范围界定审查。对于 AOS 和 CAS，文献围绕四种主要的诊断方法进行了图表和总结：言语症状、定量言语测量、语言运动过程受损和神经影像学。结果结果表明，类似的方法已用于研究成人和儿童言语失用症的鉴别诊断；然而，AOS 和 CAS 之间最受研究关注的具体措施有所不同。已经确定了几个有希望的 AOS 和 CAS 候选标记；然而，很少有研究报告可用于评估其诊断准确性的指标。结论在过去的二十年里，鉴定 AOS 和 CAS 潜在诊断标志物的研究不断涌现。为了改善 AOS 和 CAS 的临床诊断，需要进行研究来测试多个候选标记物的诊断准确性，更好地控制语言障碍合并症，更多地纳入言语障碍对照组，并更加关注翻译工作朝着有希望的措施的临床实施。