Cited by 312Orthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Minimal clinically important difference for grip strength: a systematic review

Open access
Bohannon, Richard W·2019·Journal of Physical Therapy Science

Abstract

[Purpose] The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in grip strength is critical to interpreting changes in hand strength over time. This review was undertaken to summarize extant descriptions of the MCID for grip strength. [Methods] A search of 3 bibliographic databases as well as a hand search were completed to identify articles reporting the MCID for grip forces obtained by dynamometry. [Results] Of 38 unique articles identified as potentially relevant, 4 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this review. The MCIDs ranged from 0.04 kg to 6.5 kg. However, only a single study used receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and had an associated area under the curve exceeding 0.70. That study reported an MCID of 6.5 kg, which was similar to the MCIDs of another included study and minimal detectable changes reported elsewhere. [Conclusion] Additional, more rigorous, studies are needed to identify MCIDs for grip strength. In the meantime changes of 5.0 to 6.5 kg may be reasonable estimates of meaningful changes in grip strength.

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 · 10.1589/jpts.31.75

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bohannon RW: Muscle strength: clinical and prognostic value of hand-grip dynamometry. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care, 2015, 18: 465-470. [Medline]
  2. Kim JK, Park MG, Shin SJ: What is the minimum clinically important difference in grip strength? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2014, 472: 2536-2541. [Medline]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bohannon, R. W.
Affiliations
Campbell University (US)
Corresponding author
Bohannon, Richard W
Venue
Journal of Physical Therapy Science
Published
2019
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
75-78
ISSN
  • 0915-5287 (ISSN-L)
  • 2187-5626
OpenAlex
W2910191954
Cited by
312
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 6
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Physical Therapy Science (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
minimal clinically important difference, grip strength, dynamometry, receiver operating characteristic, minimal detectable change, hand function

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