ReviewFrontiers in aging2026
Handgrip strength across clinical conditions and health-related outcomes in older adults: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in aging, 2026. 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
Background and Aim: Handgrip strength (HGS) is a simple, non-invasive, and widely used measure of muscle function that has been examined in relation to several health-related outcomes in older adults. This scoping review aimed to map the extent, range, and nature of the evidence on the relationship between HGS and clinical conditions or health-related outcomes in older adults and aging-related populations, with particular attention to population characteristics, outcome classification, and HGS measurement protocols. Methods: This scoping review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Observational studies, including cross-sectional, cohort, longitudinal, and panel designs, were eligible when they examined HGS in relation to clinical conditions or health-related outcomes in older adults or aging-related populations. Searches were conducted in ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, and MEDLINE via PubMed, with SpringerLink used as a supplementary publisher platform. Articles published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were considered. Study selection, data charting, and methodological appraisal were performed using structured forms. Findings were synthesized descriptively by study characteristics, health-related domain, HGS measurement protocol, and HGS operationalization. Results: The search identified 890 records, and 18 studies comprising 243,334 participants were included in the final synthesis. Ten studies were cross-sectional, whereas eight used longitudinal, cohort, or panel designs. Neurocognitive and mental health outcomes were the most frequently examined domain, followed by musculoskeletal conditions or syndromes, functional outcomes, quality of life, frailty, comorbidity burden, and cardiovascular risk. HGS measurement varied across studies in terms of dynamometer type, hand assessed, number of attempts, summary value, cut-off points, and analytical operationalization. Lower HGS or HGS-related parameters were reported across studies in relation to poorer health-related outcomes, although study design, population heterogeneity, and differences in HGS protocols limited direct comparability. Conclusion: This review shows that HGS has been studied across multiple aging-related health domains, particularly neurocognitive and musculoskeletal outcomes. However, the predominance of observational designs and heterogeneity in HGS measurement and outcome definitions limit causal interpretation. Further longitudinal studies using standardized HGS protocols and consistent outcome definitions are needed.
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.