ArticleNutrients2024
A Cross-Sectional Validation Study of Camry EH101 versus JAMAR Plus Handheld Dynamometers in Colorectal Cancer Patients and Their Correlations with Bioelectrical Impedance and Nutritional Status.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of the InGrip digital dynamometer compared with the Jamar hydraulic model in older adults.European geriatric medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Assessment of Muscle Function Decline and Cachexia-Related Biomarkers in Hospitalized Oncology Patients: Study Protocol.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Handgrip strength assessment in breast cancer patients: validity and reliability of the Activ5 dynamometer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Effects of 12 Weeks of Interval Block Resistance Training Versus Circuit Resistance Training on Body Composition, Performance, and Autonomic Recovery in Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Exploring the relationship between cognitive abilities and motor performance in athletes with intellectual disabilities.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Article
- A Cross-Sectional Validation of Horos and CoreSlicer Software Programs for Body Composition Analysis in Abdominal Computed Tomography Scans in Colorectal Cancer Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReduced muscle strength (dynapenia) and mass (atrophy) are prognostic factors in oncology. Measuring maximal handgrip strength with dynamometers is feasible but limited by the cost of the reference device (JAMAR).
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on colorectal cancer outpatients treated with chemotherapy or under active surveillance in our center from September 2022 to July 2023. Accuracy, reliability, and concordance were compared for two handheld dynamometers: the JAMAR Plus (the gold-standard device) and the Camry EH101 (a low-cost index device). A simultaneous nutritional diagnosis with GLIM criteria and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was carried out.
resultsA total of 134 participants were included. The median of maximal strength for the JAMAR Plus had a non-significant difference of 1.4 kg from the Camry EH101. The accuracy and reliability of the devices were high. Bland-Altman analysis showed a 0.8 kg bias and -4.1 to 5.6 kg limits of agreement (LoA); a 0.1 kg bias and -5.3 to 5.4 kg LoA in men; a 1.5 kg bias and -2.2 to 5.3 kg LoA in women. In total, 29.85% of the participants were malnourished. Prevalence of dynapenia increased from 3.67% with the JAMAR Plus to 5.14% with the Camry EH101. Both devices had a moderate and significant correlation with BIA-estimated muscle mass.
conclusionsThe Camry EH101 was a cost-effective alternative to JAMAR Plus in our sample.
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.