Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 488

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Loss of Muscle Strength, Mass (Sarcopenia), and Quality (Specific Force) and Its Relationship with Functional Limitation and Physical Disability: The Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project

Hairi, Noran N., Cumming, Robert G., Naganathan, Vasi, Handelsman, David J., Le Couteur, David G., Creasey, Helen, Waite, Louise M., Seibel, Markus J., Sambrook, Philip N.·2010·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03145.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between loss of muscle strength, mass, and quality and functional limitation and physical disability in older men. DESIGN: Cross‐sectional study of older men participating in the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project (CHAMP). SETTING: Elderly men living in a defined geographical region in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand seven hundred five community‐dwelling men aged 70 and older who participated in the baseline assessments of CHAMP. MEASUREMENTS: Upper and lower extremity strength were measured using dynamometers for grip and quadriceps strength. Appendicular skeletal lean mass was assessed using dual X‐ray absorptiometry. Muscle quality was defined as the ratio of strength to mass in upper and lower extremities. For each parameter, subjects in the lowest 20% of the distribution were defined as below normal. Functional limitation was assessed according to self‐report and objective lower extremity performance measures. Physical disability was measured according to self‐report questionnaire. RESULTS: After adjusting for important confounders, the prevalence ratio (PR) for poor quadriceps strength and self‐reported functional limitation was 1.91 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.10–2.40); for performance‐based functional limitation the PR was 1.81 (95% CI=1.45–2.24). The adjusted PR for poor grip strength and physical disability in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) was 1.37 (95% CI=1.20–1.56). The adjusted PR for low skeletal lean mass (adjusted for fat mass) and physical disability in basic activities of daily living was 2.08 (95% CI=1.37–3.15). For muscle quality, the PR for lower extremity specific force and functional limitation and physical disability was stronger than upper extremity specific force. CONCLUSION: Muscle strength is the single best measure of age‐related muscle change and is associated with physical disability in IADLs and functional limitation.

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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03145.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hairi, N. N., Cumming, R. G., Naganathan, V., Handelsman, D. J., Le Couteur, D. G., Creasey, H., Waite, L. M., Seibel, M. J., & Sambrook, P. N.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11
Volume
58
Issue
11
Pages
2055-2062
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
DOI
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03145.x
OpenAlex
W1924687968
Cited by
488
References
11
FWCI
12.75
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

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.