Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Normal values for handgrip strength in 920 men and women aged over 65 years, and longitudinal changes over 4 years in 620 survivors

Bassey, E. J., Harries, U. J.·1993·Clinical Science

Abstract

1. The maximal grip strength of the hand has been measured in a random sample of 359 men and 561 women aged over 65 years living in their own homes. The response rate was 80% from a representative demographic area of the U.K. Measurements were made of body mass, skeletal size (demispan) and grip strength. Grip strength was measured using a custom-built strain-gauged dynamometer. The best of three attempts was taken as definitive. A structured questionnaire was used to obtain information about customary activity, use of handgrip muscles, health and psychological well-being. This was repeated with 620 survivors 4 years later. 2. The results for strength were normally distributed. The right hand was 10% stronger than the left and men had twice the strength of women. Strength was significantly related to skeletal size and in men to body mass. The gender difference was only partly accounted for by skeletal size and women were substantially disadvantaged in terms of their strength/body mass ratio. 3. There was a significant decline in strength with age of 2%/year for men and women. Strength was also significantly related to customary activity, reported use of the hands and psychological and physical health. 4. After 4 years 620 survivors were re-measured. Grip strength had declined by 12% in men and 19% in women and these losses were significantly related to age. A significant decline was also found in reported use, customary activity and health scores, and in women in body mass and psychological health. The loss of strength was significantly related to the decline in reported use of the hands but not to the other losses. 5. It is concluded that loss of strength over time in old age may be seriously underestimated by cross-sectional studies, especially in women; and that the loss is consistently and predominantly related to lack of use, rather than loss of health.

Overview

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 · 10.1042/cs0840331

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 312

Metadata

Authors
Bassey, E. J., & Harries, U. J.
Venue
Clinical Science
Published
1993-03-01
Volume
84
Issue
3
Pages
331-337
ISSN
  • 0143-5221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-8736
OpenAlex
W10014889
Cited by
312
References
0
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Normal values for handgrip strength in 920 men and women aged over 65 years, and longitudinal changes over 4 years in 620 survivors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1042/cs0840331
The paper
Bassey, E. J., & Harries, U. J. (1993). Normal values for handgrip strength in 920 men and women aged over 65 years, and longitudinal changes over 4 years in 620 survivors. Clinical Science. https://doi.org/10.1042/cs0840331

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.