ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Comparing the digital dynamometer and Martin vigorimeter for handgrip strength: reliability, agreement, and prognostic value.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unilateral Balance, Muscular Strength, Foot Arch Status, and Physical Performance in Young Adults with and Without Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Foot Arch Status and Muscular Strength: Associations with Unilateral Balance and Physical Performance.Diagnostics (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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHandgrip strength (HGS) measurement is vital for clinical assessment in older adults, yet comparative performance of different devices in Asian populations remains understudied. Prior validation focused mainly on healthy adults, but this is the first comprehensive comparison in institutionalized older adults with cognitive impairment and ADL disability. To compare the measurement properties and prognostic value of a digital dynamometer and Martin vigorimeter in Chinese nursing home residents, especially those with ADL disability and cognitive impairment.
methodsA multicenter longitudinal study of 772 residents (502 men, 270 women; median age 71.0 vs. 80.5 years) from 15 nursing homes. HGS was measured with both devices per standardized protocols. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were evaluated using ICC, CV, SEM, MDC, and Spearman’s ρ. Device agreement was assessed via Bland-Altman, and prognostic value for 30-month mortality was analyzed with Cox regression, adjusting for multiple covariates.
resultsBoth devices showed excellent test-retest reliability (digital ICC: 0.945; Martin ICC: 0.943). The Martin vigorimeter performed better in participants with ADL disability (CV: 10.48% vs. 14.01%; SEM: 8.6% vs. 11.6%; MDC: 23.0% vs. 25.7%). Inter-rater reliability favored the Martin device (ICC: 0.790 vs. 0.664). Strong correlations were observed (R = 0.60–0.62). Both devices had comparable prognostic value for mortality (adjusted HR: digital 4.50; Martin 2.77), despite different measurement principles.
conclusionsBoth devices are reliable mortality predictors in older adults, but the Martin vigorimeter offers superior properties in those with ADL disability. These findings inform device selection for vulnerable older populations.
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.