SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Validation and reliability of a modified sphygmomanometer for the assessment of handgrip strength in Parkinson's disease.

Braz J Phys Ther · 2015-03-01

DOI: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0081PMID: 25993627

Open accessComparative Study; research-article; Validation Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundHandgrip strength is currently considered a predictor of overall muscle strength and functional capacity. Therefore, it is important to find reliable and affordable instruments for this analysis, such as the modified sphygmomanometer test (MST).ObjectivesTo assess the concurrent criterion validity of the MST, to compare the MST with the Jamar dynamometer, and to analyze the reproducibility (i.e. reliability and agreement) of the MST in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodThe authors recruited 50 subjects, 24 with PD (65.5 ± 6.2 years of age) and 26 healthy elderly subjects (63.4 ± 7.2 years of age). The handgrip strength was measured using the Jamar dynamometer and modified sphygmomanometer. The concurrent criterion validity was analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and a simple linear regression test. The reproducibility of the MST was evaluated with the coefficient of intra-class correlation (ICC(2,1)), the standard error of measurement (SEM), the minimal detectable change (MDC), and the Bland-Altman plot. For all of the analyses, α ≤ 0.05 was considered a risk.ResultsThere was a significant correlation of moderate magnitude (r ≥ 0.45) between the MST and the Jamar dynamometer. The MST had excellent reliability (ICC(2,1) ≥ 0.7). The SEM and the MDC were adequate; however, the Bland-Altman plot indicated an unsatisfactory interrater agreement.ConclusionsThe MST exhibited adequate validity and excellent reliability and is, therefore, suitable for monitoring the handgrip strength in PD. However, if the goal is to compare the measurements between examiners, the authors recommend that the data be interpreted with caution.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.