ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition: A Reliable Tool for Assessing Motor Development in Children.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation Analysis of Clinical, Imaging, and Genetic Etiologies in Pediatric Hereditary Cerebellar Atrophy: A Single-Center Study.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Cross-Segmental Transfer Effects of Lower Limb Cross-Training Priming on Upper Extremity Functional Recovery in Pediatric Unilateral Cerebral Palsy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Closing Developmental Gaps: Effectiveness of Community-Based Early Intervention for Young Children with Developmental Delays.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early identification of motor difficulties is essential in infancy and early childhood, and current American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations emphasize that motor surveillance should accompany routine clinical visits. One standardized tool widely used for evaluating motor development is the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition (PDMS-2). This review summarizes the theoretical foundations and psychometric properties of the PDMS-2, the principles of administering and scoring the assessment, and evidence from validation and standardization studies conducted in different countries. A non-systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar (2000-February 2025) using the terms "PDMS-2" OR "Peabody Developmental Motor Scales Second Edition" combined with "reliability", "validity", "norms", "reference", or "standardization". Original and review articles published in English were included without geographical restrictions. The PDMS-2 is widely applied in both clinical and research contexts. It has been used as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials, interventional, and observational studies involving preterm infants, children with genetic syndromes, metabolic disorders, cerebral palsy, congenital heart defects, HIV, oncological conditions, and typically developing children. Key strengths of the PDMS-2 include its broad age range, the ability to assess both gross and fine motor skills, and its quantitative scoring system, which supports diagnosis, therapeutic planning, and monitoring of developmental change. Although the tool has been validated and standardized in multiple countries, additional work is still needed to establish normative data for underrepresented populations.
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.