ArticleMateria socio-medica2016
SIDE TO SIDE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DOMINANT AND NON-DOMINANT ARM'S BONE DENSITY AND ISOMETRIC HANDGRIP STRENGTH IN MALES AND FEMALES AGED 40-65 YEARS OLD.
Article in Materia socio-medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive scoping review and meta-analysis of upper limb strength asymmetry.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of bone mineral density between the tumour side and the healthy side in patients with malignant tumours of the long bones of the lower extremities: a prospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
- Association between Relative Handgrip Strength and Osteoporosis in Older Women: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2014-2018.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis observational, cross-sectional study, investigates and compares the differences of BMD, T-score, Z-score and isometric strength between dominant (D) versus non-dominant (ND) arms of 162 subjects aged 40-65 in a developing, low income country (Kosova). MATERIAL AND
methodsBone Mineral Density (BMD), T-score and Z-score at distal forearm regions of both arms (measured by DXA scan), together with the Handgrip Isometric Strength (HIS) (by handgrip) were evaluated in a total subjects (53 Males and 109 Females). Additionally, General Healthcare Status Questionnaire together with self-administrated International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) were filled.
resultsSignificant differences (p<0.05) between arms were found in BMD, T-score, and Z-score in total subjects and in females, whereas not significant differences (p>0.05) were observed in Males BMD comparing to significantly higher results (p<0.05) in T-score and Z-score. Significant differences (p<0.05) were also found in total subjects and in females handgrip, but not (p>0.05) in males. When comparing the total subject's BMD, T-score, Z-score and Handgrip based on the PA levels (1 to 3 according to IPAQ scoring) no significant differences (p>0.05) were found between PA1, as well as PA3 whereas significantly differences (p<0.05) were found in D arms of PA2 level.
conclusionThe study analyses side-to-side differences in bone density and muscular force between D and ND arms amongst a population which is frequently exposed to diagnostic screenings for age related osteomuscular conditions (aged 40-60), and demonstrates that these differences should be in consideration amongst clinicians, but not in the way it is done right now.
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.