ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Reliability and validity of the hand-held dynamometer "NOD": a new instrument for assessment of isometric grip strength.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Article
- Improvements in vertical jump by healthy adults at high altitude despite inter-individual differences in neuromuscular coordination changes.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Higher Grip Strength Is Associated With Reduced Risk of Incident Symptomatic Hand Osteoarthritis: Data From Two Cohort Studies.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHand grip strength (HGS) is an important measure in a physiotherapy assessment and for this purpose it is necessary to have valid and reliable instruments to measure it. In this study we aimed at investigating the reliability, validity, and agreement of the new hand-held dynamometer NOD (OT-Bioelettronica, To-Italy) compared to Jamar® hydraulic dynamometer (JD), the gold standard.
methodsFifty healthy subjects were selected; 9 trials for the dominant hand and 9 trials for the non-dominant hand were administrated to each of them: 3 trials of HGS with the JD in rung #3, 3 trials with the JD-adapted-grip (like the NOD one), and 3 trials with NOD. To verify the reliability of NOD, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC 3,1) was calculated with a mixed effects model with the addition of adjustment variables (age, gender, dominant / non-dominant limb, trials). The model used single HGS measurements to estimate variance components, so reflecting both degree of correspondence and agreement among devices. To assess concurrent validity NOD was compared to the "gold standard" JD, in terms of ICCs and through Pearson correlation. The agreement between the methods of measurement was calculated with the Limits of Agreement (LoA) and the plots of Bland-Altman.
resultsAll ICCs show high inter-reliability; the results are very similar for both dynamometers. The value of the adjusted ICC of NOD was 0.90. For validity, Pearson correlations of NOD towards JD and JD-adapted-grip were high (r = 0.87 and 0.88). However, the LoA and the plots of Bland-Altman demonstrated that there is no agreement between NOD and JD and between NOD and JD-adapted-grip, with NOD showing lower mean scores than JD.
conclusionsNOD is a reliable and valid instrument for HGS. However, even if it cannot be considered interchangeable with JD because there is no agreement between them in free-living adults, NOD is easier to carry than other dynamometers, it has a Bluetooth® connection with a free App and it is a multi-purpose tool that should be considered both in daily practice and in clinical settings.
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.