Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
1Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal;2System Integration and Process Automation Research Unit-Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal;3Porto Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal; and4Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Published: July 2017
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Guerra, RS, Amaral, TF, Sousa, AS, Fonseca, I, Pichel, F, and Restivo, MT. Comparison of Jamar and Bodygrip dynamometers for handgrip strength measurement. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1931-1940, 2017-Studies that compared the agreement between Jamar and other models of dynamometers for handgrip strength (HGS) measurement have exhibited variability in the provided results. The lack of comparability between dynamometers led to the development of the Bodygrip dynamometer. This study aims to examine the reliability of the Bodygrip for HGS measurement, to compare it with the Jamar, and to explore the HGS differences between instruments considering the ergonomic effect of using the Bodygrip with 2 different handles. A cross-sectional study was conducted in free-living (n = 114, 18-89 years) and inpatient (n = 50, 65-93 years) volunteers. Nondominant HGS was tested randomly with the Jamar and Bodygrip, the latter using 2 different handles-curved and straight types. Handgrip strength was obtained for each participant under the same conditions. Each individual performed 2 HGS measurements with each dynamometer, and the maximum HGS value was considered for dynamometers comparison. Differences in the maximum HGS value between the 2 devices (Jamar-Bodygrip), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland and Altman plots, and limits of agreement were obtained. Correlation between the highest HGS measurement obtained for the nondominant hand with the Jamar and with the Bodygrip using each handle was excellent (ICCs: 0.93-0.95). Mean differences of -0.5 (limits of agreement: -4.6; 3.5) kgf with the curved handle and of 1.0 (-7.7; 9.7) kgf with the straight handle for the free-living participants were obtained, whereas for inpatients these values were -1.0 (-3.8; 1.9) kgf and 2.1 (-3.3; 7.5) kgf, respectively, for the curved and straight handles. The Bodygrip is comparable to the Jamar in free-living adults and in hospitalized older adults, exhibiting excellent interinstrument reliability. The Bodygrip with the curved handle produces results closer to the Jamar when compared with Bodygrip with the straight handle, which emphasizes the importance of grip handle ergonomics to measurement reliability.
