ReviewCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2025
Biological Sex and the Association Between Grip Strength and Cardiovascular Disease: a Scoping Review.
Review in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This scoping review examines how biological sex has been considered in studies investigating the association between grip strength and cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors. Methods: We used the Askey and O'Malley framework, reported as per the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. A search was conducted in four electronic bibliographic databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies published after 2001. Results: Of the 39 included studies, 82.0% (n = 32) used biological sex as a confounder variable in the association of interest. Two studies used interaction terms between biological sex and grip strength and found no statistically significant interactions. Five studies used sex-stratified analyses alone. Three of these studies found that the cardiovascular risk due to low grip strength is higher in males than in females. Two other studies used both interaction terms between biological sex and grip strength and sex-stratification analyses and found no statistically significant differences. Sociocultural gender was not considered in any of the identified studies. Conclusion: We found that biological sex was often considered as a confounder variable in the association between grip strength and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as cardiovascular risk factors. On the other hand, two studies reported the presence of effect modification by sex rather than confounding, that these associations were stronger in males versus females. Five other studies did not identify evidence of interaction nor effect modification. Future research is needed to clarify the nature of these associations and understand any potential biological mechanisms.
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.