ArticlePloS one2024
The accuracy of different calculation methods when identifying handgrip strength asymmetry among middle-aged and older Chinese adults.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At present, there is no uniform standard mean of identifying handgrip strength (HGS) asymmetry based on maximum or average HGS values. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the accuracy of different calculation methods in the evaluation of HGS asymmetry. Using the maximum reading of two trials from both hands (Method A) as the reference standard, the accuracy of the HGS asymmetry identified by the average value of two trials of both hands (Method B) was determined by using various indicators, including specificity, sensitivity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), positive, and negative predictive values. Overall, 12,163 individuals were included in this study, of whom 47.61% (5791/12,163) were male. The percentages of individuals with HGS asymmetry differed as a function of age and sex when using these two different methods. When employing Method A, 38.52%, 41.57%, and 44.57% of males 45 ≤ age<60, 60 ≤ age<80, and ≥ 80 years of age exhibited HGS asymmetry as compared to 40.78%, 39%, and 39.63% of females. Using Method B, the corresponding proportions were 41.69%, 42.5%, and 40% in males and 42.01%, 41.18%, and 40.55% in females, respectively. When compared to Method A, Method B was found to be effective in identifying HGS asymmetry, with AUC values ranging from 0.844 to 0.877. However, there was only moderate agreement between the two methods in assessing HGS asymmetry. Specifically, the Kappa values for the two Methods were 0.692, 0.694, and 0.766 in males aged 45 to 60, 60 to 80, and 80 years and above, respectively. For females, the Kappa values were 0.674, 0.661, and 0.751, respectively. These results demonstrated that the maximal or average HGS values from two trials using both hands has a significant impact on the consequent identification of HGS asymmetry.
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.