ArticleHeliyon2023
Manual dexterity in school-age children measured by the Grooved Pegboard test: Evaluation of training effect and performance in dual-task.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of exercise interventions on hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills in children with developmental coordination disorder: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Motor and cognitive determinants of L2 handwriting fluency and legibility in 10-12-year-old girls: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Differences in Motor Competence Between Children and Adolescents With and Without ADHD: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- The impact of sports experience on manual dexterity performances in school-age children.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Reliability of a gamified tablet-based tapping digital test for assessing motor coordination in adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and management of motorbike chain-related fingertip injuries: A retrospective study at B&B Hospital, Kathmandu.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Predictability and Complexity of Fine and Gross Motor Skills in Fibromyalgia Patients: A Pilot Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Young basketball players have better manual dexterity performance than sportsmen and non-sportsmen of the same age: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Manual dexterity is the ability to manipulate objects using the hands and fingers for a specific task. Although manual dexterity is widely investigated in the general and special population at all ages, numerous aspects still remain to be explored in children. The aim of this study was to assess the presence of the training effect of the execution of the Grooved Pegboard test (GPT) and to measure the performance of the GPT in dual-task (DT), i.e., during a motor task and a cognitive task. Methods: In this observational, cross-sectional study manual dexterity was assessed in children aged between 6 and 8. The procedure consisted of two phases: (1) the execution of five consecutive trials of the GPT to evaluate the training effect; (2) the execution of one trial of the GPT associated with a motor task (finger tapping test, GPT-FTT), and one trial of the GPT associated with a cognitive task (counting test, GPT-CT) to evaluate the performance in DT. Results: As for the training effect, a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the five trials of the GPT (i.e., GPT1, GPT2, GPT3, GPT4, GPT5) was detected. In particular, we found a significant difference between GPT1 and GPT3 (p < 0.05), GPT1 and GPT4 (p < 0.001), and GPT1 and GPT5 (p < 0.001), as well as between GPT2 and GPT4 (p < 0.001), and GPT2 and GPT5 (p < 0.001).As for the performance in DT, no differences between the best trial of the GPT (i.e., GPT5) and both the GPT-FTT and GPT-CT was found. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the execution of the GPT in children has a training effect up to the third consecutive trial. Furthermore, the administration of the GPT in DT does not affect GPT performance.
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.