Assessment of Grip Strength Across the Continuum of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To clarify key concepts in the administration and interpretation of grip strength assessment across the continuum of care through a scoping review, and report the evidence that addresses and informs practice. Methods: Electronic databases, Medline and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), were searched from 2011 to 2016 for abstracts that included 1 or more of the following terms: hand strength, grip strength, sincerity of effort, and muscle dynamometry. Studies were selected using an iterative team approach and were included if they were published in English, used either hydraulic or digital instruments with established validity and reliability to assess grip strength, and reported the method of assessment, the population tested, and the practice context. Implications for rehabilitation practice across the continuum of care were identified by the authors and validated through a consultation process with clinicians in various practice areas (medicolegal, acute care, geriatrics, and hand rehabilitation). Results: Updated information regarding assessment protocol, norms, and the impact of age, gender, nutritional status, and vocational and avocational activities will be presented. Use of grip strength in the determination of sincerity of effort testing will be challenged in light of the findings. In addition, the prognostic value of grip strength assessment for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular mortality, and acute hospital admission length of stay will be highlighted. Conclusions: Evidence-based administration and interpretation of grip strength assessment by rehabilitation professionals are essential components of comprehensive assessment across the continuum of care. The finding of this scoping review supports the formal assessment of grip strength in multiple practice environments and highlights its prognostic value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".