Ryan McGrath1, Brenda M Vincent2, Donald A Jurivich3, Kyle J Hackney1, Grant R Tomkinson4,5, Lindsey J Dahl3, Brian C Clark6,7. 1. Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 2. Department of Statistics, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 3. Department of Geriatrics, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 4. Department of Education, Health and Behavior Studies, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 5. Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 6. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ohio University, Athens. 7. Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, Athens.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating handgrip strength (HGS) asymmetry may help to improve the prognostic value of HGS. This study sought to determine the associations of HGS asymmetry and weakness on future activities of daily living (ADL) disability in a national sample of aging Americans. METHODS: The analytic sample included 18,468 Americans aged ≥50 years from the 2006-2016 waves of the Health and Retirement Study. A handgrip dynamometer measured HGS. Those with HGS >10% stronger on either hand were considered as having any HGS asymmetry. Individuals with HGS >10% stronger on their dominant hand were considered as having dominant HGS asymmetry, while those with HGS >10% stronger on their nondominant hand were classified as having nondominant HGS asymmetry. Men with HGS <26 kg and women with HGS <16 kg were considered weak. ADLs were self-reported. Generalized estimating equations were used for analyses. RESULTS: Relative to those with symmetric HGS and no weakness, each HGS asymmetry and weakness group had increased odds for future ADL disability: 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.20) for any HGS asymmetry alone, 1.42 (CI: 1.16-1.74) for weakness alone, and 1.81 (CI: 1.52-2.16) for both any HGS asymmetry and weakness. Most weakness and HGS asymmetry dominance groups had increased odds for future ADL disability: 1.30 (CI: 1.13-1.50) for nondominant HGS asymmetry alone, 1.42 (CI: 1.16-1.74) for weakness alone, 1.72 (CI: 1.29-2.29) for both weakness and nondominant HGS asymmetry, and 1.86 (CI: 1.52-2.28) for both weakness and dominant HGS asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: HGS asymmetry and weakness together may increase the predictive utility of handgrip dynamometers.
BACKGROUND: Evaluating handgrip strength (HGS) asymmetry may help to improve the prognostic value of HGS. This study sought to determine the associations of HGS asymmetry and weakness on future activities of daily living (ADL) disability in a national sample of aging Americans. METHODS: The analytic sample included 18,468 Americans aged ≥50 years from the 2006-2016 waves of the Health and Retirement Study. A handgrip dynamometer measured HGS. Those with HGS >10% stronger on either hand were considered as having any HGS asymmetry. Individuals with HGS >10% stronger on their dominant hand were considered as having dominant HGS asymmetry, while those with HGS >10% stronger on their nondominant hand were classified as having nondominant HGS asymmetry. Men with HGS <26 kg and women with HGS <16 kg were considered weak. ADLs were self-reported. Generalized estimating equations were used for analyses. RESULTS: Relative to those with symmetric HGS and no weakness, each HGS asymmetry and weakness group had increased odds for future ADL disability: 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.20) for any HGS asymmetry alone, 1.42 (CI: 1.16-1.74) for weakness alone, and 1.81 (CI: 1.52-2.16) for both any HGS asymmetry and weakness. Most weakness and HGS asymmetry dominance groups had increased odds for future ADL disability: 1.30 (CI: 1.13-1.50) for nondominant HGS asymmetry alone, 1.42 (CI: 1.16-1.74) for weakness alone, 1.72 (CI: 1.29-2.29) for both weakness and nondominant HGS asymmetry, and 1.86 (CI: 1.52-2.28) for both weakness and dominant HGS asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: HGS asymmetry and weakness together may increase the predictive utility of handgrip dynamometers.
Authors: Ryan McGrath; Grant R Tomkinson; Brian C Clark; Peggy M Cawthon; Matteo Cesari; Soham Al Snih; Donald A Jurivich; Kyle J Hackney Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Ryan McGrath; Terri L Blackwell; Kristine E Ensrud; Brenda M Vincent; Peggy M Cawthon Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kyle Collins; Nathaniel Johnson; Lukus Klawitter; Roman Waldera; Sherri Stastny; William J Kraemer; Bryan Christensen; Ryan McGrath Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ryan McGrath; Brian C Clark; Matteo Cesari; Carol Johnson; Donald A Jurivich Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 4.481