ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Assessment of muscle fatigability using isometric repetitive handgrip strength in frail older adults. A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Isometric Handgrip Training and Cardiovascular Risk Modulation: State of the Art.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Impact of preoperative handgrip strength and frailty on early postoperative loss of independence in patients with colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Fatigue and recovery assessed by repetitive handgrip strength measurement as predictors of fall risk in older adults: A cross-sectional study.Clinical rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Intrarater and Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the 3-Meter Backward Walk Test in Non-frail, Pre-frail, and Frail Older Adults in Residential Care Homes.Physical therapy · 2025Article
- The relationship between chronic pain and health-related quality of life: the mediating roles of frailty and depression in chronic disease patients.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFatigue has a significant impact on physical performance and quality of life in older adults, but is subjectively assessed in the Fried phenotype, so early deterioration may be overlooked. This study explores whether repetitive handgrip strength (HGS) provides an objective method of differentiating levels of frailty by comparing fatigue and recovery ratios with subjective measures and their correlations with frailty indicators.
methodsParticipants (n = 217) were included based on mobility and cognitive function (MMSE > 17), with exclusions for neuromuscular disease or hand injury. The protocol consisted of two 10-maximal grip assessments one hour apart, calculating fatigue ratios 1 and 2 (maximum/mean force) at each session and recovery ratios between sessions. Logistic regression analysed associations between Fried's criteria components (Unintentional Weight Loss, Exhaustion Single Question, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE), standard Maximum HGS, Fatigue Ratio, and Recovery Ratio).
resultsAmong the participants (58 non-frail, 68 pre-frail, 91 frail; ages 74.7, 79.4, 83.8 years), significant differences were found for Fatigue Ratio 1 of 1.12 (non-frail), 1.23 (pre-frail), 1.40 (frail), Fatigue Ratio 2 of 1.12, 1.21, 1.45, and Recovery Ratio of 1.03, 1.01, 0.90, respectively. Fatigue Ratios 1, 2 and Recovery correlated more strongly with frailty status (r = 0.67, 0.69, -0.68) than MFI (r = 0.50), standard maximum HGS (r = -0.51) or a single fatigue question (r = 0.21). In logistic regression for predicting fatigue (MFI), Fatigue Ratio (OR = 1.51, p < 0.001) and Recovery Ratio (OR = 0.83, p = 0.022) were stronger predictors than single-question fatigue (OR = 1.15, p = 0.047) and maximum HGS. For predicting frailty, physical performance (SPPB) was the strongest predictor (OR = 0.72, p < 0.001), followed by Fatigue Ratio 1 (OR = 1.28, p < 0.001), with a higher Recovery Ratio reducing frailty risk (OR = 0.86, p = 0.050).
conclusionThe repetitive HGS protocol is equivalent to the SPPB in assessing frailty and outperforms standard HGS and subjective fatigue measures. This objective method supports the identification of frailty by measuring strength, fatigue resistance and recovery capacity.
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.