Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 8, 2025
Measuring the Motor Aspect of Cancer-Related Fatigue using a Handheld Dynamometer
Published on: February 20, 2020
Grip Strength and Demographic Variables Estimate Appendicular Muscle Mass Better Than Bioelectrical Impedance in
Ming-Yen Hsiao1, Ke-Vin Chang2, Wei-Ting Wu3
1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Objectives:
This study aimed to develop an equation model combining physical fitness and anthropometric parameters and compare its results with those of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-measured lean mass (LM) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-measured appendicular muscle mass (AMM) as reference.
Design:
Observational analysis.
Setting And Participants:
Healthy community-dwelling older subjects.
Methods:
A total of 1020 participants were randomly allocated to the development group (development group, n = 510) or the cross-validation group (validation group, n = 510). Body composition was measured using both DXA and BIA, and physical fitness parameters, including grip strength, timed stepping test, sit-to-stand test, flexibility, and walking speed were also assessed. A prediction equation model of AMM by stepwise linear regression analysis that included or excluded 1 independent variable at each step, based on the P value of significance (P < .05), was developed.
Results:
Using weight, sex, height, and handgrip strength as independent variables, the equation AMM = -9.833 + 0.397 × weight (kg) + 4.433 × sex + 0.121 × height (cm) + 0.061 × handgrip strength (kg) best predicts DXA-measured AMM (adjusted R2 = 0.914, SEE = 2.062, P < .001). The predicted AMM was more highly correlated with DXA-measured AMM than the commonly used BIA-measured LM (R2= 0.9158 and 0.8427, respectively, both P < .001). Using DXA-measured AMM as reference, the Bland-Altman plot showed mean differences of -0.03 kg and -0.12 kg, with limits of agreement of -3.98 to 3.92 kg and -5.97 to 5.73 kg for the predicted AMM and BIA-measured AMM, respectively.
Conclusions And Implications:
The proposed equation offers a practical alternative method for estimating AMM that is less facility-dependent and more easy to use and affordable than instrumental studies.
