Grip strength – Agreement analysis between two dynamometers: JAMAR vs E-Link

Authors

  • Maria Teresa Tomás Área Científica de Fisioterapia, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa. Lisboa, Portugal.
  • Maria Beatriz Fernandes Área Científica de Fisioterapia, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa. Lisboa, Portugal.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25758/set.484

Keywords:

Grip, Dynamometers, Agreement analysis, Bland & Altman

Abstract

Introduction – Assessing grip strength has proved to be of vital importance because of its relationship with the functional capacity of individuals, in order to determine levels of risk for future disability and thereby establish prevention strategies. Most studies use the JAMAR Hydraulic dynamometer that provides the value of isometric force obtained during the performance of grip movement. However, there are other dynamometers available, such as portable computerized dynamometer E-Link (Biometrics), which provides the value of maximum force (peak force) in addition to other variables such as the rate of fatigue. There are no studies that allow us to accept or not and compare values ​​obtained with both devices and perhaps use them interchangeably. Purpose – To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of grip strength (peak force or maximum force in kg) obtained from two different devices (portable dynamometers): a computerized (E-Link, Biometrics) and a hydraulic (JAMAR). Methodology – 29 subjects (13H, 16M, 22 ± 7 years, 23.2 ± 3.3 kg/m2) were assessed on two consecutive days at the same time of day. The test position chosen was recommended by the American Association of Occupational Therapists and was considered the best result from three attempts for the dominant hand. A correlation was studied between values ​​obtained in the variable analyzed in each equipment (Spearman coefficient) and Bland-Altman analysis to assess the agreement between the two measurements. Results – The correlation coefficient between the two measurements was high (rs = 0,956, p <0.001) and Bland & Altman's analysis of the values ​​obtained are all within the range of mean±2SD. Conclusions – The two measurements were shown to be concordant, revealing that the tested dynamometers can be comparable or used interchangeably in different studies and populations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Luna-Heredia E, Martín-Peña G, Ruiz-Galiana J. Handgrip dynamometry in healthy adults. Clin Nutr. 2005;24(2):250-8.

Budziareck MB, Pureza Duarte RR, Barbosa-Silva MC. Reference values and determinants for handgrip strength in healthy subjects. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(3):357-62.

Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Oberg B. Intra- and inter-tester reliability and reference values for hand strength. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(1):36-41.

Tomás MT, Santa-Clara H, Monteiro E, Carolino E, Freire A, Barroso E. Alterações da força preensão em portadores de polineuropatia amiloidótica familiar [Grip strength changes in familial amyloidotic polineuropathy]. Acta Med Port [Internet]. 2010;23(5):803-10. Available from: http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/pdf/2010-23/5/803-810.pdf. Portuguese

Tander B, Akpolat T, Durmus D, Canturk F. Evaluation of hand functions in hemodialysis patients. Ren Fail. 2007;29(4):477-80.

Goodson A, McGregor AH, Douglas J, Taylor P. Direct, quantitative clinical assessment of hand function: usefulness and reproducibility. Man Ther. 2007;12(2):144-52.

Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66(2):69-74.

Jansen CW, Niebuhr BR, Coussirat DJ, Hawthorne D, Moreno L, Phillip M. Hand force of men and women over 65 years of age as measured by maximum pinch and grip force. J Aging Phys Act. 2008;16(1):24-41.

Werle S, Goldhahn J, Drerup S, Simmen BR, Sprott H, Herren DB. Age- and gender-specific normative data of grip and pinch strength in a healthy adult swiss population. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009;34(1):76-84.

Pires AF, Castro AP, Seixas C, Tomás MT, Coutinho I, Carolino E. Avaliação da força de preensão da mão, força dos membros inferiores e capacidade funcional em idosos activos e sedentários [Evaluation of the grip force, lower body strength and functional capacity in active and sedentary elders]. Saúde e Tecnologia [Internet]. 2008;1(1):36-41. Available from: http://repositorio.ipl.pt/bitstream/10400.21/99/1/S%26T.01.2008.05.pdf. Portuguese

Matos LC, Tavares MM, Amaral TF. Handgrip strength as a hospital admission nutritional risk screening method. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007;61(9):1128-35.

Cucinotta D, Frondini C, Paletti P, Reggiani A, Lancellotti F, Galletti L. The importance of assessment of nutritional status for the extension of an independent longevity. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl. 2002;8:123-8.

Rantanen T, Masaki K, Foley D, Izmirlian G, White L, Guralnik JM. Grip strength changes over 27 yr in Japanese-American men. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85(6):2047-53.

Al Snih S, Markides KS, Ray L, Ostir GV, Goodwin JS. Handgrip strength and mortality in older Mexican Americans. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(7):1250-6.

Rantanen T, Guralnik JM, Foley D, Masaki K, Leveille S, Curb JD, et al. Midlife hand grip strength as a predictor of old age disability. JAMA. 1999;281(6):558-60.

Giampaoli S, Ferrucci L, Cecchi F, Lo Noce C, Poce A, Dima F, et al. Hand-grip strength predicts incident disability in non-disabled older men. Age Ageing. 1999;28(3):283-8.

Granjo MI, Mendes MJ, Ferreira A, Matos J, Tomás M, Coutinho I, et al. Avaliação da força de preensão em indivíduos expostos e não expostos a actividade manual específica (repetitividade e exposição ao frio): estudo comparativo. Rev Segurança. 2007;XLII(179):27-31.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307-10.

Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singapore Med J. 2003;44(12):614-9.

Published

2012-05-15

Issue

Section

Artigos

How to Cite

Grip strength – Agreement analysis between two dynamometers: JAMAR vs E-Link. (2012). Saúde & Tecnologia, 07, 39-43. https://doi.org/10.25758/set.484