Cited by 85Cardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionPhysical Activity and Health

Grip Strength and Walking Pace and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction in 406,834 UK Biobank Participants

Open access
Welsh, Claire E., Celis-Morales, Carlos A., Ho, Frederick K., Brown, Rosemary, Mackay, Daniel F., Lyall, Donald M., Anderson, Jana J., Pell, Jill P. +4 more·2020·Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Abstract

Objective To investigate whether the addition of grip strength and/or self-reported walking pace to established cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores improves their predictive abilities.Patients and methods A total of 406,834 participants from the UK Biobank, with baseline measurements between March 13, 2006, and October 1, 2010, without CVD at baseline were included in this study. Associations of grip strength and walking pace with CVD outcomes were investigated using Cox models adjusting for classical risk factors (as included in established risk scores), and predictive utility was determined by changes in C-index and categorical net reclassification index.Results Over a median of 8.87 years of follow-up (interquartile range 3, 8.25-9.47 years), there were 7274 composite fatal/nonfatal events (on the basis of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [ACC/AHA] outcome) and 1955 fatal events (on the basis of the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE] risk score). Both grip strength and walking pace were inversely associated with CVD outcomes after adjusting for classical risk factors. Addition of grip strength (change in C-index: ACC/AHA, +0.0017; SCORE, +0.0047), usual walking pace (ACC/AHA, +0.0031; SCORE, +0.0130), and both combined (ACC/AHA, +0.0041; SCORE, +0.0148) improved the C-index and also improved the net reclassification index (grip, +0.55%; walking pace, +0.53%; combined, 1.12%).Conclusion The present study has found that the addition of grip strength or usual walking pace to existing risk scores results in improved CVD risk prediction, with an additive effect when both are added. As both these measures are cheap and easy to administer, these tools could provide an important addition to CVD risk screening, although further external validation is required.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.12.032

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 85

Authors
Welsh, C. E., Celis-Morales, C. A., Ho, F. K., Brown, R., Mackay, D. F., Lyall, D. M., Anderson, J. J., Pell, J. P., Gill, J. M. R., Sattar, N., Welsh, P., & Gray, S. R.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Gray, Stuart R.
Venue
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
95
Issue
5
Pages
879-888
ISSN
0025-6196 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015602909
Cited by
85
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mayo Clinic Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • HSBC
  • MMI Kuwait
  • Medical Research Council
  • Diabetes UK
  • Prostate Cancer UK
  • European Commission
  • Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland
  • University of Glasgow
  • Roche
  • AstraZeneca
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
grip strength, walking speed, cardiovascular risk prediction, cardiovascular risk score, SCORE risk score, net reclassification improvement, concordance index, cardiovascular risk screening
MeSH terms
Walking Speed, Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Databases, Factual, Biological Specimen Banks, Risk Assessment, Hand Strength

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review