ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2025
Longitudinal Stability of The Handgrip Strength Measurements in University Students.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Weekend Cyclists vs. Regular Cyclists: Association of Physical Training Distribution on Performance, Cardiometabolic Parameters and Muscle Oxygen Saturation.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Handgrip strength, a component of physical fitness tests and a biomarker of future health, is typically measured annually. However, no studies have looked at the consistency of these measurements over time. We investigated the reliability of handgrip strength measurements among university students who take the test annually. Our data included 3649 students (2769 males and 880 females) who were tested annually over their four years in university. Results showed a significant difference in absolute errors across the three test-retest intervals (p < 0.001). Specifically, the 1-year longitudinal reproducibility was significantly better than the reproducibility at 2-years and 3-years. There were no differences in longitudinal reproducibility between the 2-year and 3-year time points (p = 0.490). The minimal difference values at the 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year time points were 7.70, 8.33, and 8.35 kg, respectively. When comparing the percentage of coefficient variation (%CV) values, the reliability was better in males than in females (p = 0.025). The difference in the %CV between sexes was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.03-0.52) %. When examining the results using absolute error, the results were reversed, with females having lower absolute error values than males (p < 0.001). The reliability values were better for the digital handgrip device as compared to the analog device (p < 0.001). These findings can help evaluate the consistency of handgrip strength measurements made annually. When measured annually in young adults, a change of at least approximately 20% (calculated using %MD in both sexes) in the measured values is necessary to indicate a change confidently.
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.