ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
What is the most appropriate handgrip strength testing protocol for sarcopenia screening in older adults with cognitive impairment?
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
backgroundHandgrip strength (HGS) testing is a highly recommended method for screening for sarcopenia in older adults. However, there is no consensus on the optimal protocol and number of trials for screening sarcopenia in older adults with cognitive impairment.
objectiveTo investigate the use of the first trial (FT), the mean of three trials (MT), and the highest value (HT) from three trials of the HGS test to screen for sarcopenia in older adults with cognitive impairment. Additionally, to analyze the consistency, agreement, and measurement error in the diagnosis of muscle weakness.
methods176 older adults with cognitive impairment were evaluated. The HGS test was repeated three times. Analyses were performed using the Friedman repeated measures test with Wilcoxon post-hoc, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), Minimal Detectable Change (MDC95), and Kappa index tests.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the first trial (FT) and the mean of three trials (MT) (d = 0.17 [95 % CI: -0.08, 0.42]), but both differed significantly from the highest value (HT) (p < 0.001). The ICC indicated a reliability of 0.97 (95 % CI: 0.95, 0.98) across all participants, while the kappa index demonstrated over 80 % agreement. The SEM for the first measure of HGS ranged from 0.59 to 2.12 kgf. The MDC
conclusionFor HGS testing, there was excellent consistency between the FM and MT. All three testing methods demonstrated excellent agreement in diagnosing muscle weakness. The measurement errors confirm that FT can be reliably used to monitor changes during rehabilitation.
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.