Cited by 3,001Nutrition and Health in AgingFrailty in Older AdultsBody Composition Measurement Techniques

A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach

Roberts, Helen C., Denison, Hayley J., Martin, Helen J., Patel, Harnish P., Syddall, Holly, Cooper, Cyrus, Sayer, Avan Aihie·2011·Age and Ageing

Abstract

Background the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People has developed a clinical definition of sarcopenia based on low muscle mass and reduced muscle function (strength or performance). Grip strength is recommended as a good simple measure of muscle strength when 'measured in standard conditions'. However, standard conditions remain to be defined. Methods a literature search was conducted to review articles describing the measurement of grip strength listed in Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 December 2009. Results there is wide variability in the choice of equipment and protocol for measuring grip strength. The Jamar hand dynamometer is the most widely used instrument with established test-retest, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. However, there is considerable variation in how it is used and studies often provide insufficient information on the protocol followed making comparisons difficult. There is evidence that variation in approach can affect the values recorded. Furthermore, reported summary measures of grip strength vary widely including maximum or mean value, from one, two or three attempts, with either hand or the dominant hand alone. Conclusions there is considerable variation in current methods of assessing grip strength which makes comparison between studies difficult. A standardised method would enable more consistent measurement of grip strength and better assessment of sarcopenia. Our approach is described.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ageing/afr051

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, H. C., Denison, H. J., Martin, H. J., Patel, H. P., Syddall, H., Cooper, C., & Sayer, A. A.
Affiliations
MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Helen C.
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2011-07
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
423-429
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2159294672
Cited by
3,001
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 296 · 2025: 318 · 2024: 307 · 2023: 300 · 2022: 315 · 2021: 290 · 2020: 290 · 2019: 198 · 2018: 195 · 2017: 156 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Age and Ageing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2008-26-006, NF-SI-0508-10082)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
grip strength, sarcopenia, muscle strength assessment, hand dynamometer, measurement standardization, test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, older adults
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aging, Equipment Design, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment, Observer Variation, Hand Strength, Muscle Strength Dynamometer, Sarcopenia

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