Handgrip strength measurement protocols for all-cause and cause-specific mortality outcomes in more than 3 million participants: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Handgrip strength is a strong predictor of the risk of mortality. The objective of this systematic review was to analyse handgrip strength measurement protocols used in all-cause and cause-specific mortality studies. METHOD: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted from inception to February 2022. Prospective cohort studies with objective measures of handgrip strength were included. Studies had to report at least one all-cause, cancer, or cardiovascular mortality outcome. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-regression was used to quantify the bias associated with handgrip strength values in relation to the use of different measurement protocols. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies with a total of 3,135,473 participants (49.6% women) were included. Half of the studies controlled body position, 39.6% arm position, 33.3% elbow position, 12.5% wrist position, 13% handgrip duration, 23% hand-adjustment to dynamometer and 12.5% verbal encouragement. The number of measurements, the laterality of the hand tested, and the estimation method of the handgrip strength value varied considerably between the study protocols. The spline regression model showed a non-linear inverse association between the values of handgrip strength and the number of protocol items controlled. Handgrip strength was higher when the number of measurements per hand or arm position was not controlled. Conversely, handgrip strength was lower when elbow position was not controlled or verbal encouragement were not provided. CONCLUSION: In general, the protocols used to assess handgrip strength in mortality studies are incomplete and highly heterogeneous. Handgrip strength values were higher when studies controlled fewer handgrip strength measurement protocol variables. There is a need to improve the controlling of handgrip strength measurement protocols and to standardise the method to enhance the accuracy of mortality risk estimates associated with handgrip strength. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022334929.
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 | 0.025 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".