Differences in handgrip strength protocols to identify sarcopenia and frailty - a systematic review

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2017

Authors

Sousa Santos, AR (Author) Other; Amaral, Teresa (Author) FCNAUP

Journal

Title: BMC Geriatrics

Vol. 17

ISSN: 1471-2318

Publisher: Springer Nature

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 110 Citations

Scopus - 118 Citations

Pubmed / Medline

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00N-4JY

DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0625-y

Abstract (EN): Background: Hand grip strength (HGS) is used for the diagnosis of sarcopenia and frailty. Several factors have been shown to influence HGS values during measurement. Therefore, variations in the protocols used to assess HGS, as part of the diagnosis of sarcopenia and frailty, may lead to the identification of different individuals with low HGS, introducing bias. The aim of this systematic review is to gather all the relevant studies that measured HGS to diagnose sarcopenia and frailty and to identify the differences between the protocols used. Methods: A systematic review was carried out following the recommendations of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched, until August 16, 2016. The evidence regarding HGS measurement protocols used to diagnose sarcopenia and frailty was summarised and the most recent protocols regarding the procedure were compared. Results: From the described search 4393 articles were identified. Seventy-two studies were included in this systematic review, in which 37 referred to sarcopenia articles, 33 to frailty and two evaluated both conditions. Most studies presented limited information regarding the protocols used. Conclusions: The majority of the studies included did not describe a complete procedure of HGS measurement. The high heterogeneity between the protocols used, in sarcopenia and frailty studies, create an enormous difficulty in drawing comparative conclusions among them.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 21