Trial reportEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of the InGrip digital dynamometer compared with the Jamar hydraulic model in older adults.
Trial report in European geriatric medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06623019 (Study of the Validity and Reliability of Two Digital Dynamometers in Older People), which is not on this 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.
Study of the Validity and Reliability of Two Digital Dynamometers in Older People
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
Abstract
introductionHandgrip strength is essential for diagnosing sarcopenia and assessing muscle function in older adults. The Jamar hydraulic dynamometer, backed by strong clinical and epidemiological data, is widely used; however, weight and calibration requirements may limit use. Digital models such as InGrip offer stable calibration and ergonomic design. This study aimed to validate accuracy, reliability, and diagnostic performance of InGrip versus the Jamar.
methodsA cross-sectional, randomized, single-center study of 415 community-dwelling older adults (mean age: 75.3 ± 6.5 years). Handgrip strength was measured with both devices per the Southampton protocol. Correlation and agreement (Bland-Altman, ICC) between InGrip and the reference dynamometer (Jamar) were analyzed, and diagnostic capacity via ROC curves, estimating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for low handgrip strength per EWGSOP2 criteria.
resultsThe InGrip dynamometer showed strong correlation with the Jamar dynamometer (r = 0.95) and excellent agreement (ICC = 0.94), intra-observer (ICC = 0.96), and inter-observer (ICC = 0.96), with a mean bias of - 0.37 kg and limits of agreement from - 4.45 to 3.72 kg. Its diagnostic capacity was high (AUC women = 0.968; AUC men = 0.982). Optimal cutoffs were ≤ 18 kg for women (sensitivity = 92.6%, specificity = 90.5%) and ≤ 27.5 kg for men (sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 93%).
conclusionThe InGrip digital dynamometer showed excellent validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy compared to the Jamar in community-dwelling older adults, with sex-specific cutoffs aligned with EWGSOP2 criteria, supporting its use as a practical alternative for strength assessment in research and clinical practice.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06623019.
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.