ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
The effect of frailty on the adjustability of grasping force in community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
backgroundThis study aimed to clarify the influence of frailty on the adjustability of grasping force (AGF) in community-dwelling older adults.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 23 community-dwelling older adults. Participants were assessed for basic information, the Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study (J-CHS) criteria, the Frenchay Activities Index, and AGF. The participants were classified into the robust and non-robust groups based on the J-CHS criteria. AGF was quantified using the AGF score, defined as the absolute error between the target and actual grasping force; lower AGF scores indicated better AGF.
resultsThe non-robust group showed significantly lower AGF scores than the robust group in the total (p = 0.02), isometric (p = 0.04), and concentric (p = 0.01) sections of the non-dominant hand, indicating better AGF. In the robust group, AGF scores in the concentric section differed significantly between the dominant and non-dominant hands (p = 0.02), with the dominant hand showing a lower AGF score, indicating better AGF. In the non-robust group, AGF scores in the isometric section differed significantly between the dominant and non-dominant hands (p = 0.04), with the non-dominant hand showing a lower AGF score, indicating better AGF.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that non-robust older adults may compensate for functional limitations by enhancing AGF in the non-dominant hand.
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.