ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2026
Can grip strength capture what chair standing does? methodological considerations on functional measures and successful aging in three international cohorts.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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
Population aging has accelerated globally, making successful aging a key public health priority. Zhuang and Gao address the prospective association between cumulative average grip strength and successful aging using three international cohorts. While their multi-cohort design offers valuable cross-population insights, several methodological choices warrant consideration. Grip strength may not fully capture functional determinants of successful aging. Self-reported chronic disease introduces misclassification bias varying across socioeconomic groups. The two-stage temporal design does not fully address selection bias and cross-cohort comparability from heterogeneous exposure windows. Additionally, the cohort-relative cognitive threshold undermines cross-population comparability. These considerations highlight the need for methodological reflection and suggest directions for strengthening future multi-cohort studies.
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.