What is Known About Muscle Strength Reference Values for Adults Measured by Hand-Held Dynamometry: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To map the body of existing literature regarding reference values of maximal isometric muscle strength (MIMS) of upper and lower limbs obtained with handheld dynamometers (HHD) in healthy adults to identify potential gaps in the literature and specify future research needs. Data Sources: A scoping review in which PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL plus, PEDRO, and Cochrane databases were searched before May 1, 2020. Study Selection: All studies using standardized HHD protocols for the purpose of establishing reference values in healthy adult population were included. Two independent reviewers completed an initial screening of article titles and abstracts, and the remaining articles were read in their entirety and screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were discussed, with recourse to a third reviewer when needed. Data Extraction: Data of the selected studies were extracted and charted by 2 independent reviewers using a tested data extraction grid to ensure method standardization. Data were subsequently merged to produce the complete final extracted data. Data Synthesis: Titles and abstracts of 4015 studies were screened, 46 articles were fully reviewed, and 9 manuscripts were selected for the final analysis. A large variability exists between protocols used for muscle testing in terms of type of device, measurement units, subject positioning, and muscle groups tested. Conclusion: The existing literature regarding HHD reference values of MIMS is scarce and presents gaps notably relating to strength units and well-described protocols with known psychometric properties, despite the development and increased availability of high quality HHD. This observation emphasizes the critical need to develop reference values in manual dynamometry in adults to optimize the use of manual dynamometry for diagnostic and prognostic decisions.
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 | 0.052 | 0.259 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".