ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Validity of self-reported measures of decreased muscle strength in older adults.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto analyze the validity of self-reported measures for screening decreased muscle strength in older adults.
methodsthis cross-sectional study assessed muscle strength using the gold-standard Handgrip Strength (HGS) test and the application of four subjective measures: A = perceived reduction in strength; B = difficulty lifting 5 kg; C = low score on the SARC-F; and D = combination of measures A + B. Validity was determined through sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy, with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
resultsa total of 18.7% of participants exhibited decreased muscle strength, while subjective measures showed a frequency variation between 74.2% and 35.5%. Measure A demonstrated the highest sensitivity, whereas Measure C exhibited the highest specificity. The accuracy of Measures A, B, C, and D was 61.5%, 41.2%, 34.8%, and 36.2%, respectively.
conclusionsself-reported measures demonstrated low accuracy; however, Measures A and C, due to their ease of application, could be used in combination.
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.