Clinical importance of simple muscular fitness tests to predict long-term health conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 94 cohort studies

Abstract

Objective

To examine the predictive validity of field-based muscular strength tests in relation to incident long-term health conditions among adults.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, CINAHL, Epistemonikos and Google Scholar.

Eligibility criteria

Cohort studies examining the predictive value of validated and/or reliable field-based muscular strength tests in relation to long-term health conditions in adults aged ≥18 years.

Results

A total of 155 studies were included with 94 included in the meta-analysis. Adults with the highest (vs lowest) handgrip strength levels had a lower risk of multiple long-term health conditions (all p<0.05), including cardiovascular diseases (OR=0.73; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80), type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR=0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91), musculoskeletal impairment (OR=0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76), disability (OR=0.57; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.70), anxiety (OR=0.79; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), depression (OR=0.70; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78), cognitive decline (OR=0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75), dementia (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.73) and Parkinson’s disease (OR=0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91). A 5 kg increase in handgrip strength was associated with a lower risk of developing most of these long-term health conditions. In turn, adults with the best (vs worst) performance on the 5-repetition chair-stand test had a lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR=0.80; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88), musculoskeletal impairment (OR=0.52; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.74), disability (OR=0.58; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82), depression (OR=0.63; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.95), and dementia (OR=0.68; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85). Every 1 s decrease was associated with 0.94 lower odds of musculoskeletal impairment. The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, indicating limited to moderate confidence in the results.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest increased handgrip strength and chair-stand test performance are associated with a lower risk of multiple long-term health conditions among adults. This research underscores the predictive value of simple field-based muscular strength tests which appear to be clinically useful for adults across different age groups and demographic profiles.

Keywords: Health, Physical fitness, Public health, Primary Health Care, Epidemiology

Introduction

Non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes, account for around 74% of global deaths each year, including 17 million among people under 70.¹ Importantly, many of these deaths could be prevented or delayed by addressing modifiable risk factors, such as an adequate level of physical fitness.¹ Muscular strength is widely recognised as a health marker, associated with lower risk of major non-communicable diseases and mortality, and with the potential to signal long-term health conditions.² Thereby, muscular strength assessments have emerged as promising, non-invasive tools in clinical practice, offering a cost-effective and practical means to monitor health status and predict prognosis,³ particularly in resource-limited settings. Importantly, although laboratory-based muscular strength assessments can be highly accurate, their feasibility in many clinical settings is limited due to cost, infrastructure and time constraints. Field-based muscular strength tests are simple, feasible tools that require minimal equipment, are quick to administer and can help identify individuals at risk of non-communicable diseases or functional decline.⁴ Therefore, a focused review is needed to determine which of these tests could support health screening in clinical practice.

Previous studies and meta-analyses have mostly focused on determining and quantifying the predictive validity of the field-based muscular strength tests on disease-specific or all-cause mortality.³⁵,¹⁰ While these findings are crucial, the role of field-based muscular strength in predicting long-term health conditions—an equally significant burden for individuals and societies, especially non-communicable diseases—remains less explored. This gap warrants a comprehensive and updated meta-analysis of the link between these tests and future long-term health conditions.

A recent umbrella review¹¹ assessing the predictive utility of handgrip strength (HGS) test as a predictor of mortality and morbidity in community-dwelling older people concluded that while the association between HGS test values and all-cause mortality is well established,^{35 12},¹⁴ it remains to be clarified whether other field-based muscular strength tests may also predict health prognosis. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have collected the latest information on the predictive validity of field-based muscular strength tests on multiple long-term health conditions among adults. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the evidence on the prognostic value of field-based muscular strength tests for long-term health conditions in adults aged ≥18 years.

Methods

This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted under the premises of the Prognosis Research Strategy framework and was structured as overall prognosis research describing the risk of a condition in a given population.¹⁵ In addition, it was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)¹⁶ guidelines and reported in accordance with the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)¹⁷ guidelines. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022324110).

Data sources and search strategy

PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, CINAHL and Epistemonikos databases were searched from inception up to 20 November 2024. A subsequent search using the same search strategy was performed in the web search engine Google Scholar (initial 200 references). Additionally, reference lists of included studies were reviewed to find additional eligible studies. The detailed search strategies are shown in the online supplemental appendix 1.

Eligibility criteria

Longitudinal and prospective/retrospective cohort studies were selected based on the following PECO criteria¹⁸: (1) Population: general adult population aged ≥18 years at baseline; (2) Exposure: the highest (top extreme category) or higher (continuous variable) levels of valid/reliable field-based muscular strength tests that have shown in recent systematic reviews^{19 20} to have at least moderate validity or reliability in relation to health outcomes; (3) Comparison: the lowest level (lower extreme category) of muscular strength tests and (4) Outcomes: specific long-term health conditions were classified and defined following Medical Subject Headings criteria (online supplemental appendix 1,methods) as major chronic diseases (cardiovascular diseases (eg, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke), cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and respiratory diseases), indicators of functional decline (musculoskeletal impairment (eg, osteoporosis risk, falls, fractures) and disability (eg, disability in activities of daily living, functional mobility, ambulatory status)), common mental disorders (ie, anxiety and depression) operationalised as diagnosed cases or subclinical symptoms, neurodegenerative disorders or conditions (ie, cognitive decline, dementia and Parkinson’s disease), and health-related quality of life. Studies conducted in populations with specific diseases at baseline (ie, diagnosed or self-reported) or special interest groups (eg, military, pregnant women) were excluded. No language, publication date or other restrictions were applied.

Study selection

The selection process was independently conducted by two researchers (NMJ and PMG) using the Covidence software, achieving an excellent inter-rater agreement (k=0.85), indicating strong consistency; and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. These two researchers also independently screened all citations, reviewed abstracts for eligibility and extracted data. Any remaining disagreements were resolved by consultation with senior authors (FBO, MC-G and JC-P).

Data extraction

The following data were extracted: author(s) and year of publication, cohort/project name, participant characteristics at baseline (ie, sample size, mean age and sex distribution), length of follow-up, type of field-based muscular strength test measurement tool, sample categorisation (based on fitness results), long-term health conditions and health outcomes measurement. In addition, effect size estimates (the most fully adjusted risk ratios, HRs and ORs with their corresponding 95% CIs), and covariate adjustments were extracted for meta-analysis synthesis.

Methodological quality, risk of bias and certainty of evidence

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale²¹ was used to assess the methodological quality of included cohort studies, through three domains: the selection of participants, the comparability of study groups and the outcome ascertainment. Each domain contains a specific set of items that are subject to evaluation based on the level of risk of bias. The total score for a study could range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating higher methodological quality. Based on the total score, studies were categorised as having low (0–3), moderate (4–6) or high (7–9) methodological quality.²² In addition, the risk of bias was assessed at the individual study level using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool, which evaluates six domains: (1) study participation; (2) study attrition; (3) prognostic factor measurement; (4) outcome measurement; (5) study confounding and (6) statistical analysis and reporting.²³

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence for long-term health conditions.²⁴ According to the GRADE guideline, observational studies were initially rated as low quality of evidence, and certain domains could downgrade (ie, overall risk of bias, inconsistency, heterogeneity, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias) or upgrade (ie, large magnitude of effect, dose response gradient and plausible residual confounding) the quality of evidence. We developed consensus-based criteria for downgrading or upgrading GRADE domains (online supplemental appendix 2, table S1). Evidence tables were generated through the web-based GRADEpro software by exporting the results of all analyses (https://www.gradepro.org/),

NOS and risk of bias were applied to all included studies, while GRADE was applied only to those studies included in the meta-analyses. The risk of bias, NOS and GRADE evaluations were independently performed by two reviewers (NMJ and PMG). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third author (JC-P). The reviewers achieved an excellent agreement (k=0.94) on the quality assessment prior to the consensus process and reached 100% agreement following a consensus meeting with the involvement of the third investigator (JC-P).

Exposure harmonisation

To facilitate interpretation and comparison across studies, separate analyses were performed based on whether HGS test in absolute units (kilograms (kg)) was reported as categorical (highest vs lowest category) or continuous (per 5 kg increment) variables. A similar procedure was followed for chair-stand test (CST) performance (five-repetition CST (5-CST)) considering whether the exposure in absolute units (seconds) was reported as categorical (best vs worst category) or continuous (per 1 s decrease). First, the procedures included pooling data comparing the incidence of long-term health conditions between the highest/best and lowest/worst level (reference category=1) of HGS test or 5-CST. Therefore, when the included cohort studies categorised muscular strength into group percentiles, the extreme categories (ie, tertile 3 vs tertile 1, quartile 4 vs quartile 1, quintile 5 vs quintile 1) were compared. Second, data analysing the associations between a 5 kg increase in HGS test or a 1 s decrease in 5-CST and the risk of long-term health conditions were pooled. Cohort studies that reported results according to an increase in the HGS test with values other than 5 kg²⁵,⁴⁴ or according to an improvement in 5-CST performance with values other than 1 second^{45 46} were included in the meta-analysis assuming a linear relationship between the exposure as a continuous variable and the incidence of long-term health conditions. For example, if one study³⁰ reported an OR of 0.80 for the risk of a certain health condition per 10 kg increment in HGS test, an OR of 0.90 was assumed per 5 kg increment.

Effect size

The effect size estimators most frequently applied by the included studies were HRs and ORs. Although HR estimates assume proportional hazards (ie, the ratio of the hazard rates in the exposed vs unexposed groups is constant over time), whereas OR estimates do not, HR and OR can be used interchangeably, especially for rare events. Thus, because most cohort studies that reported HR had low population rates of incident cases related to long-term health conditions (ie, <15%), ORs provide a good approximation as a risk ratio estimator.⁴⁷ In addition, ORs cannot be converted to HRs because most of the studies that reported ORs did not provide the number of cases, and an assumed control risk cannot be obtained.² Therefore, the ratio summary statistics for the associations between HGS test or 5-CST performance and the risk of long-term health conditions were jointly included as ORs in our meta-analyses and subjected to log transformations before being analysed.⁴⁸ When studies compared exposure as categorical, the lowest level was set as the reference (ie, equal to 1). OR values less than one indicate a lower risk of long-term health conditions associated with the highest/best (vs lowest/worst) exposure category, per 5 kg increase in HGS test, or per 1 s decrease in 5-CST.

Data synthesis

Meta-analyses were conducted separately based on whether HGS test in kilograms (kg) and 5-CST performance in seconds were reported as categorical (highest vs lowest category) or continuous variables (per 5 kg increase in HGS and per 1 s decrease in 5-CST). A random effects model with the Sidik-Jonkman method was applied.⁴⁹ Heterogeneity across cohort studies was assessed using the I² metric and the corresponding p values were also considered.⁴⁸ Heterogeneity was classified as not important (0%–40%), moderate (30%–60%), substantial (50%–90%) or considerable (75%–100%).⁴⁸ Forest plots were used to display the pooled ORs with their 95% CIs for the prospective associations between HGS test or 5-CST performance (as categorical or continuous data) and the incidence of long-term health conditions (ie, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, T2DM, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal impairment, disability, anxiety, depression, cognitive decline, dementia and Parkinson’s disease).

Subgroup analyses were performed according to sex (females vs males), age group (adults (18–64 years) vs older adults (≥65 years)) and region of the study population (Asia vs Europe vs North America). Given the limited availability of stratified results by coexisting health condition status within individual studies, we performed subgroup analyses based on the proportion of participants with at least one co-existing long-term health condition at baseline, distinct from the outcome of interest (lower (<50%) vs higher (≥50%) clinical complexity), to investigate whether this factor modified the associations under study. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies that reported increased or decreased HGS test with values other than 5 kg and including only studies that used a sex-specific cut-off point for clinically relevant muscular weakness according to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project (HGS test <26 kg for males and <16 kg for females)⁵⁰ and to other specific criteria that applied similar cut-off points (<31 kg for males and <21 kg for females).¹⁴⁵¹,⁵⁴ Additional sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method to evaluate the robustness of the summary estimates.⁴⁸

Statistical significance was set at a two-sided p<0.05. All analyses were conducted using the meta⁵⁵ and metafor⁵⁶ packages in the R software and the RStudio environment.

Methodological considerations

ORs were converted to 1/OR when the highest/best level of HGS test or 5-CST performance was set as the reference group to place all effect sizes in a common frame.⁵⁷ In turn, the same procedure was applied for follow-up studies reporting the influence of a 5 kg decrease in HGS test on the incidence of long-term health conditions. Furthermore, studies from the same epidemiological cohort were included in the corresponding meta-analysis depending on the health-related outcome examined and whether they reported exposure in different units (absolute or relative) or data analysis (categorical or continuous exposure). This strategy allows the largest number of studies to be included without double counting the same participants in each meta-analysis. In turn, when two or more studies examined data from the same cohort, exposure harmonisation and outcome, we performed a three-level random-effects meta-analysis model.⁵⁸ Follow-up studies of the same cohorts have potential sample overlapping and dependency between effect sizes and consequently lead to overconfidence in the results of a meta-analysis.⁵⁷ The multilevel approach accounts for this unit-of-analysis error containing three pooling steps (ie, sampling variance, variance between effect sizes from the same sample and variance between studies) that leads to an overall true effect size, increasing statistical power and providing maximum information from the data.⁵⁹

The multilevel approach was not used when studies examined the same cohort, but one of them analysed the incidence of long-term health conditions excluding participants with the event at baseline (studies included in the meta-analysis) and the others evaluated changes in symptoms without excluding participants with the event at baseline (studies excluded from the meta-analysis). When cohort studies reported HGS test or 5-CST performance as a categorical and continuous variable, data were included according to the appropriate meta-analysis. When the sample size and incident cases of follow-up studies examining exposure levels were not reported for the extreme categories, the total sample size was presented. If the included studies applied adjustment models, those reflecting the maximum extent of adjustment were selected. In those cases where studies stratified the results by sex, we combined the respective measures to calculate a single pooled estimate for each study. In follow-up studies reporting results for >1 follow-up length, the longest period was selected.⁶⁰,⁶³ Furthermore, in studies that provided results on the incidence of long-term health conditions according to exposure categories only graphically (ie, without specifying numerical data), risk estimates were extracted using the WebPlotDigitizer software.⁶⁴ Finally, studies that analysed HGS test or 5-CST performance as a continuous variable but did not specify the increase or decrease value were not included in the respective meta-analyses.

Equity, diversity and inclusion statement

Our research team encompasses equity across sex and diversity across countries, professions and career stages, including junior, mid-career and senior researchers. The study population is sex-balanced and includes a spectrum of ages, geographic locations and socioeconomic statuses that span the general adult population without relying entirely on specific conditions or special activities. When information was available, the results were stratified by age, geographic location and sex, which allowed us to analyse the generalisability of the results.

Results

Study selection

The PRISMA flowchart is provided in figure 1. The electronic search identified 14 951 records, with 20 additional references from other sources. After screening, 155 longitudinal studies were included in the systematic review, and 94 were meta-analysed. A total of 292 full-text articles were excluded, mainly for not using a field-based muscular strength test as the exposure or for applying cross-sectional or case–control designs (online supplemental appendix 1, results).

Figure 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the study selection process. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Methodological quality, risk of bias and certainty of evidence

All studies scored at least a ‘5’ on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment criteria, with 92.6% of studies rated over 7 (ie, high methodological quality) and the mean score being 8 (online supplemental appendix 2, table S2). According to the QUIPS assessment, most included studies presented an overall low risk of bias. Low risk was generally observed across all six domains, with some concerns identified in domain 5 (study confounding), mainly related to the limited control for potential residual confounders inherent with observational prognostic research. Additionally, minor concerns were observed in some studies for domain 4 (outcome measurement), particularly those evaluating musculoskeletal impairment, and to a lesser extent cardiovascular disease and disability, due to the use of self-reported outcomes (ie, symptom-based reports) that were not always based on validated or clinically confirmed measures. Overall, the body of evidence from studies specifically included in GRADE was considered to have a low risk of bias. The risk of bias summary figures were generated using the robvis tool⁶⁵ (https://mcguinlu.shinyapps.io/robvis/) and are presented in online supplemental appendix 3, figures S1–12).

According to the GRADE approach, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low or very low for most long-term health conditions, except for T2DM and dementia, which showed moderate certainty in both muscular strength tests (tables1 2 and online supplemental appendix 2, table S3 and S4).

Study characteristics

Online supplemental appendix 2, table S5 summarises the characteristics of the 155 included studies, published from 1999 to 2024. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 502 293 participants, being most of them recruited from the UK Biobank, The China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, and the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing. The lowest mean cohort age at baseline was 18 years, and the oldest was ≥90 years. The follow-up duration ranged from 1.5 to 25.3 years.

The outcomes were distributed in 12 long-term health conditions: cardiovascular diseases (n=18),1425 41 44 66,⁷⁹ cancer (n=6),^{14 26 66 68 80 81} T2DM (n=22),1427 28 33 34 62 82,⁹⁷ respiratory diseases (n=3),^{14 66 68} musculoskeletal impairment (n=30),1432 42 43 46 60 61 78 98,¹¹⁹ disability (n=31),2935 37 38 63 106 120,¹⁴³ anxiety, assessed either as a clinical diagnosis (generalised, phobic and other anxiety disorders) or as moderate to severe self-reported symptoms (n=3),¹⁴⁴,¹⁴⁶ depression, assessed either as a clinical diagnosis (single episodes and recurrent depression, across mild, moderate, severe and unspecified types) or as mild to severe self-reported symptoms (n=17),3031 35 142 144 145 147,¹⁵⁷ health-related quality of life (n=4),¹²³¹⁵⁸,¹⁶⁰ cognitive decline (n=26),3536 39 40 142 161,¹⁸¹ dementia (n=12),^{25137 178 181},¹⁸⁹ and Parkinson’s disease (n=3).¹⁹⁰,¹⁹²

No other field-based muscular strength tests were identified apart from the HGS test and the CST. The HGS test was the most studied (n=145),¹⁴²⁵,^{44 46 60} followed by the CST (n=36).3236 46 60 78 84 86 95 98,^{100 102 107} For the HGS test, most studies used a Jamar handgrip dynamometer, with assessments based on the highest or mean value across two or three attempts, expressed primarily in kilograms or bars. Regarding the CST, the most commonly used protocol was the 5-repetition version (n=30),3236 46 60 78 84 86 95 98,100 107 111 118 followed by other less frequently used versions, including the 30 s version (n=3),^{108 109 159} 10 repetitions (n=1),¹²⁶ 3 repetitions (n=1)¹²⁸ and 1 repetition (n=1).¹⁰²

Meta-analysis

Cohort studies that reported HGS test results in non-kg equivalent measurements (eg, unit of torque such as newton-metre or unit of pressure such as bar, kg/centimetres² or kilopascal) were not included in the meta-analyses of absolute HGS test in kg to facilitate interpretation and comparison across studies. In turn, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of measures, no additional meta-analysis was performed for these quantifications of HGS test (online supplemental appendix 2, table S5). Similarly, studies that reported the results of 5-CST performance on units other than seconds (ie, repetitions/s) were not included in the meta-analyses of 5-CST.

Highest (vs lowest) category of HGS test

A total of 58 independent comparisons (derived from 76 outcome-specific estimates) between the highest (vs lowest) category of HGS test and long-term health conditions from 64 cohort studies (mean age range: 50.0–84.7 years) were included in the meta-analysis. The studies for each long-term health condition, along with their applied cut-off points for defining the highest and lowest levels of HGS test, are displayed in (online supplemental appendix 3, figure S13). All included studies provided data for HGS test categories by standardising the cut-off point for high and low levels according to the participant’s sex or adjusting for this variable. Higher HGS was consistently associated with a lower risk of several long-term health conditions (all p<0.05), including cardiovascular diseases (OR=0.73), T2DM (OR=0.79), musculoskeletal impairment (OR=0.65), disability (OR=0.57), anxiety (OR=0.79), depression (OR=0.70), cognitive decline (OR=0.57), dementia (OR=0.62) and Parkinson’s disease (OR=0.53). Detailed estimates are provided in figure 2.

Figure 2 Pooled ORs of associations between handgrip strength levels and incident long-term health conditions. n, number of studies relating HGS with each of the outcomes; I2, used to classify heterogeneity across follow-up studies as not important (0%–40%), moderate (30%–60%), substantial (50%–90%) or considerable (75%–100%); Notes: High handgrip strength was defined as the highest group and low handgrip strength as the lowest group (ie, tertile 3 vs tertile 1, quartile 4 vs quartile 1 or quintile 5 vs quintile 1). Residual heterogeneity may reflect differences in the cut-off values used to define handgrip strength categories across the included studies. *Pooled ORs derived from all the studies investigating each long-term health condition. Online supplemental figures 13 and 14 provide the specific studies included in each long-term health condition. Long-term health conditions (online supplemental table S2) provide the specific outcomes that were classified and defined following Medical Subject Headings criteria: Cardiovascular diseases, ‘pathological conditions involving the cardiovascular system including the heart; the blood vessels; or the pericardium’; Cancer (classified as Neoplasms), ‘new abnormal growth of tissue. Malignant neoplasms show a greater degree of anaplasia and have the properties of invasion and metastasis, compared with benign neoplasms’; type 2 diabetes mellitus, ‘a subclass of diabetes mellitus that is not insulin-responsive or dependent’; Respiratory diseases (classified as respiratory tract diseases), ‘diseases involving the respiratory system’; Musculoskeletal impairment (classified as musculoskeletal diseases), ‘diseases of the muscles and their associated ligaments and other connective tissue and of the bones and cartilage viewed collectively’; Disability (classified as mobility limitation), ‘difficulty in walking from place to place’; Anxiety (clinical diagnosis or symptom severity), ‘persistent and disabling anxiety, or feelings or emotions of dread, apprehension and impending disaster’; Depression (clinical diagnosis or symptom severity), ‘depressive states usually of moderate intensity, in contrast with major depressive disorder present in neurotic and psychotic disorders; an affective disorder manifested by either a dysphoric mood or loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities, in which the mood disturbance is prominent and relatively persistent, with major depression defined as a disorder in which five (or more) symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning, with at least one symptom being depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure’; Cognitive decline (classified as cognitive dysfunction), ‘diminished or impaired mental and/or intellectual function’; Dementia, ‘an acquired organic mental disorder with loss of intellectual abilities of sufficient severity to interfere with social or occupational functioning. The dysfunction is multifaceted and involves memory, behaviour, personality, judgement, attention, spatial relations, language, abstract thought and other executive functions. The intellectual decline is usually progressive and initially spares the level of consciousness; and Parkinson’s disease, ‘a progressive, degenerative neurologic disease characterised by a tremor that is maximal at rest, retropulsion (ie, a tendency to fall backwards), rigidity, stooped posture, slowness of voluntary movements and a masklike facial expression’. HGS, handgrip strength; NA, not applicable. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Per 5-kg increase in HGS test

A total of 44 independent comparisons (derived from 48 outcome-specific estimates) between a 5 kg increase in HGS test and long-term health conditions from 41 cohort studies (mean age range: 37.2–85.0 years) were included in the meta-analysis. The studies within each long-term health condition are detailed in (online supplemental appendix 3,figure S14). A 5 kg increase in HGS was associated with a lower risk of several long-term health conditions (all p<0.05), including cardiovascular diseases (OR=0.93), T2DM (OR=0.95), musculoskeletal impairment (OR=0.92), disability (OR=0.79), depression (OR=0.94), cognitive decline (OR=0.93), dementia (OR=0.87) and Parkinson’s disease (OR=0.86). No significant associations were observed for cancer (OR=1.03) or respiratory diseases (OR=0.91). Detailed estimates are presented in figure 2.

CST performance

The results of the meta-analysis according to the 5-CST are shown in figure 3. A total of 16 cohort studies comparing the best (vs worst) category of 5-CST performance and long-term health conditions (mean age range: 57.6–84.2 years) were included in the meta-analysis. The studies within each long-term health condition, along with their applied cut-off points for defining the best and worst levels of 5-CTS, are displayed in online supplemental appendix 3, figure S15. The studies applied different cut-off points for defining the best (ie, ranging from <6.8 to <17.0 s) and worst (ie, ranging from ≥11.2 to ≥17.0 s) levels of 5-CST. Better performance in the 5-CST was associated with a lower risk of several long-term health conditions (all p<0.05), including T2DM (OR=0.80), musculoskeletal impairment (OR=0.52), disability (OR=0.58), depression (OR=0.63) and dementia (OR=0.68). When analysed as a continuous variable (online supplemental appendix 3, figure S16), a 1 s decrease on the 5-CST was associated with a lower risk of musculoskeletal impairment (OR=0.94).

Figure 3 Pooled ORs of associations between 5-repetition chair-stand performance and incident long-term health conditions. n, number of studies relating 5-CST with each of the outcomes; I2, used to classify heterogeneity across follow-up studies as not important (0%–40%), moderate (30%–60%), substantial (50%–90%) or considerable (75%–100%). Notes: Best 5-repetition chair-stand performance was defined as the highest group and worst 5-repetition chair-stand performance as the lowest group (ie, tertile 3 vs tertile 1, quartile 4 vs quartile 1, quintile 5 vs quintile 1). Residual heterogeneity may reflect differences in the cut-off values used to define chair-stand performance categories across the included studies. *Pooled ORs derived from all the studies investigating each long-term health condition. Online supplemental figures 15 and 16 provide the specific studies included in each long-term health condition. Long-term health conditions (online supplemental table S2) provide the specific outcomes that were classified and defined following Medical Subject Headings criteria: Type 2 diabetes mellitus, ‘a subclass of diabetes mellitus that is not insulin-responsive or dependent’; Musculoskeletal impairment (classified as musculoskeletal diseases) ‘diseases of the muscles and their associated ligaments and other connective tissue and of the bones and cartilage viewed collectively’; Disability (classified as mobility limitation), ‘difficulty in walking from place to place’; Depression (clinical diagnosis or symptom severity), ‘depressive states usually of moderate intensity, in contrast with major depressive disorder present in neurotic and psychotic disorders; an affective disorder manifested by either a dysphoric mood or loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities, in which the mood disturbance is prominent and relatively persistent, with major depression defined as a disorder in which five (or more) symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning, with at least one symptom being depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure’; Cognitive decline (classified as cognitive dysfunction), ‘diminished or impaired mental and/or intellectual function’ and Dementia, ‘an acquired organic mental disorder with loss of intellectual abilities of sufficient severity to interfere with social or occupational functioning. The dysfunction is multifaceted and involves memory, behaviour, personality, judgement, attention, spatial relations, language, abstract thought and other executive functions. The intellectual decline is usually progressive and initially spares the level of consciousness’. 5-CST, 5-repetition chair-stand test; NA, not applicable. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Further details of the meta-analysis results are presented in online supplemental appendix 1.

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

The protective associations between higher HGS and most long-term health conditions were generally consistent across sex and age groups, with similar risk reductions observed for cardiovascular diseases, T2DM, musculoskeletal impairment, disability and depression (tables3 4). Some variation was observed by geographic region and baseline clinical complexity (online supplemental appendix 2, tables S6 and S7).

Analyses using definitions of muscular weakness (ie, ≥26–31 kg for males and≥16–21 kg for females) yielded comparable results (online supplemental appendix 2, table S8). Likewise, higher relative HGS test was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases, T2DM and Parkinson’s disease in most cohort studies (online supplemental appendix 2, table S9). The leave-one-out sensitivity analyses showed that the pooled associations remained largely unchanged after excluding individual studies (online supplemental figures S17-S33). A detailed synthesis of all subgroup and sensitivity analyses is provided in online supplemental appendix 1.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review indicate that the HGS test is the most widely used simple and feasible field-based muscular strength test in relation to incident long-term health conditions, followed by the 5-CST. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was high and the certainty of evidence was low or very low, except T2DM and Dementia which were rated as moderate in both muscular strength tests. Our meta-analysis supports the HGS test as a consistent marker of future long-term health conditions, with the highest health-related validity among existing field-based tests.

The predictive associations between HGS test and long-term health conditions were broadly consistent across subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Despite this, specific differences emerged by age, sex, geographical region and clinical complexity. Stronger associations between HGS and musculoskeletal impairment, disability, cognitive decline and dementia in older adults likely reflect early manifestations of subclinical or functional declines associated with ageing. Whereas stronger associations with cardiovascular disease in middle-aged adults suggest that muscular strength may serve as an early indicator of long-term physiological resilience. Additionally, more pronounced associations for disability, depression and cognitive decline among women, and for T2DM and musculoskeletal impairment among men, suggest potential sex-specific pathways linking muscular strength with long-term health conditions. Regional differences were also observed with stronger protective associations for cardiovascular disease and depression in Europe, T2DM in Asia, and disability and cognitive decline in North America. In turn, in populations with higher clinical complexity, muscular strength may be particularly relevant as an indicator of reduced risk for cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline. Whereas in populations with lower clinical complexity, stronger associations with musculoskeletal impairment and disability highlight the importance of preserving muscular function to prevent early physical limitations. These variations may reflect differences in underlying health status, healthcare systems, lifestyle factors and the burden of chronic diseases across populations.

While some associations, such as a 7% reduction in cardiovascular disease risk for every 5 kg increase in HGS or a 6% reduction in musculoskeletal impairment for every 1 s improvement in the 5-CST performance, may appear modest at an individual level, they can be clinically significant at a population level. Indeed, an increase in HGS of 5 kg exceeds the minimal clinically important difference for this measure (≈3–5 kg) and is associated with a 7–10% reduction in cardiovascular risk. This represents a clinically meaningful improvement at both the individual and population levels.^{195 196} In public health, even small reductions in risk across large populations can translate into a significant number of prevented cases and associated healthcare costs.

The considerable heterogeneity (I²>75%) observed in some pooled estimates, particularly for Parkinson’s disease (high vs low HGS), respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal impairment, disability and depression (per 5 kg increase in HGS), as well as musculoskeletal impairment (per 1 s decrease in 5-CST), warrants cautious interpretation. Potential sources of between-study heterogeneity include differences in population characteristics (eg, age distribution, sex composition, baseline health status), outcome measurement methods (self-reported symptom-based reporting vs clinically confirmed diagnoses), follow-up durations, and the covariate adjustments applied across studies. Inconsistencies in the thresholds used to define muscle strength categories, as well as variations in test protocols, may have further contributed to between-study variability.

In addition, the subgroup analyses by baseline clinical complexity (eg, apparently healthy vs clinical populations) were performed at the study level. Because these analyses are ecological in nature, they cannot account for within-study confounding factors or effect modification and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, they provide exploratory insights that may generate hypotheses for future individual-level research into how baseline clinical status influences the relationship between muscular strength and long-term health conditions.

To note, adults not classified as having muscular weakness were found to have a significantly lower risk of developing several long-term health conditions compared with those classified as having weakness. These findings emphasise the potential of HGS tests as a simple clinical indicator of muscular strength in forecasting multiple long-term health conditions. The HGS test is a comprehensive measure of strength, encapsulating various facets of physical capability.¹⁹⁷ Moreover, the protective role of the highest HGS test values for cardiovascular diseases and T2DM is robust and clinically significant, irrespective of whether HGS test was expressed as an absolute value or normalised for body size.

Regarding the 5-CST, to our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically gather existing evidence regarding the predictive value of this test in relation to long-term health conditions, including T2DM, musculoskeletal impairment, disability, depression and dementia. Consequently, incorporating the 5-CST into clinical practice could be used as a simple and useful screening tool to potentially identify individuals at higher risk of these conditions. The 5-CST is a reliable and valid measure of lower limb strength, as well as static and dynamic balance, and functional mobility, mainly among older adults.¹⁹⁸ This makes it a valuable instrument for evaluating musculoskeletal and balance impairments in older adults.¹⁹⁸ Although most cohort studies exploring the predictive validity of the 5-CST included in this review focused on older adults, preliminary evidence suggests its predictive validity for musculoskeletal impairment,¹⁹⁹ disability^{126 136} and depression¹⁴⁷ in middle-aged populations. Therefore, it might be useful to include this test as a health prevention tool earlier in adulthood, although more studies are needed to corroborate its robustness. The lack of standardisation in the cut-off points applied for the 5-CST introduces variability across studies, which may impact the comparability and interpretation of the pooled findings.

Our research indicates that the evaluation of HGS test and 5-CST serves as a simple method for risk stratification in relation to multiple long-term health conditions. However, it is important to note that the 5-CST is more challenging than the HGS test, as evidenced by the increased percentage of individuals who are unable to complete the test in older age groups.²⁰⁰ Consequently, the HGS test is more widely adopted in clinical and research settings. Most likely, it is easier to standardise, supported by well-established protocols and particularly suitable for use in older adults and inpatient populations. Taken together, our findings underscore the clinical relevance of field-based muscular strength tests as simple, scalable tools to support early risk stratification and preventive action in both clinical and community health settings.

Limitations and strengths

While the findings of this study provide valuable insights, several limitations warrant consideration. First, this meta-analysis primarily focused on the HGS test and the 5-CST. Future research should explore a broader range of muscular strength assessments to enhance our understanding. Second, although we investigated the HGS test and 5-CST, variations in protocols, equipment and cut-off values were not fully accounted for, and these can influence the between-study heterogeneity of the meta-analysis. Moreover, high statistical heterogeneity (I² >75%) for several long-term health conditions (eg, cognitive decline, musculoskeletal impairment, depression and respiratory diseases) was observed, which may limit the interpretability of pooled estimates despite the consistency of directional effects.

Third, long-term health conditions such as cancer, respiratory diseases or health-related quality of life require further investigation, given that the small number of studies incorporated in this systematic review yield inconclusive or contradictory results. Fourth, the subgroup analyses comprised a limited number of studies, and the exploratory data should be interpreted with caution. Fifth, due to the paucity of data in the extant evidence and its considerable heterogeneity, it was not feasible to perform some of the proposed subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the systematic review protocol. The aim of these analyses would have been to evaluate the impact of relevant factors, including individual studies and risk factors such as physical activity or smoking. Additional sensitivity analyses were not conducted to consider the role of biomarkers due to the same limitation. Furthermore, it should be noted that each major group of long-term health conditions included a range of heterogeneous diagnoses and symptom-based outcomes, which may have introduced variability into the pooled estimates. Such outcome heterogeneity could reduce the precision of the summary estimates and limit their clinical applicability across specific conditions, as combining diverse disease entities may obscure condition-specific associations. Besides, due to the limited number of comparisons (n<10) analysing the predictive value of HGS test and 5-CST on long-term health conditions, meta-regressions⁴⁸ and publication bias²⁰¹ could not be assessed. Finally, further studies are needed in underrepresented populations, including individuals from low-income countries, ethnic minorities and younger age groups, to enhance the global applicability and equity of muscular strength-based risk stratification tools.

This study sheds light on the predictive validity of the HGS test and the 5-CST as predictors of multiple long-term health conditions. The robustness of our meta-analysis is supported by the synthesis of 94 unique cohort studies with large samples of participants from different regions, long follow-up and a wide age range. These cohorts include a variety of subgroups, allowing us to conduct nuanced and detailed analyses. This, in turn, increases the generalisability and scope of our conclusions, making them applicable to a wider array of contexts and scenarios.

Clinical implications

These findings highlight the clinical utility of simple, low-cost field-based muscular strength tests, such as the HGS test and the 5-CST, as effective predictors of multiple long-term health conditions. In primary care settings, the HGS test can serve as a quick and practical screening tool to assess overall health^{11 197} and identify individuals at risk of long-term health conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, T2DM, musculoskeletal impairment, disability, anxiety, depression, cognitive decline, dementia and Parkinson’s disease. While the 5-CST provides valuable insights into lower limb impairments and functional decline, particularly in older adults, and also T2DM, depression and dementia. However, given that the certainty of evidence was rated as very low for respiratory diseases and Parkinson’s disease when using the HGS test, and low for depression when using the 5-CST, the results for these outcomes should be interpreted with caution. In contrast, outcomes such as cardiovascular diseases, T2DM, musculoskeletal impairment, disability, anxiety, depression (these last two only for the HGS test), cognitive decline and dementia were supported by high or moderate certainty evidence, reinforcing the clinical relevance of field-based muscular strength assessments.

Importantly, our findings suggest that in populations with higher clinical complexity, maintaining muscular strength may be particularly critical for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline, whereas in populations with lower clinical complexity, muscular strength assessments may be especially valuable for early detection and prevention of musculoskeletal impairment and disability. These complementary tests can be seamlessly integrated into routine clinical workflows due to their simplicity, minimal equipment requirements and non-invasive nature.²⁰² The HGS test can be completed in less than a minute using a portable dynamometer, while the 5-CST can usually be performed in less than 15–30 s, in a standard consultation room without additional infrastructure. We recommend performing both the HGS test and the 5-CST as part of routine healthcare provider visits for adults and older adults, as it offers an efficient method to support early detection and timely intervention, particularly for those with significant risk factors. This approach is also particularly beneficial for older adults and individuals with mobility limitations, supporting preventive and therapeutic strategies. Although no formal guidelines exist, periodic reassessment of muscular strength may be valuable, particularly in clinical or rehabilitation contexts, based on individual risk profiles and intervention goals. Intervals of approximately 3 months may be appropriate, reflecting the typical duration required to observe physiological changes resulting from effective exercise interventions.²⁰³ However, this estimate is extrapolated from strength adaptation timelines rather than from outcome trials, and formal studies are needed to identify the optimal testing interval.

Future research

Future research should aim to integrate objective measures such as biomarkers alongside assessments of muscular strength to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying long-term health conditions. Biomarkers (eg, analytical, tumorous or metabolic) could offer valuable insight into the biological pathways underlying risk and progression of long-term health conditions. Incorporating biomarker data in future studies may enhance the predictive power of field-based muscular strength tests and facilitate the identification of individuals at higher risk for specific long-term health conditions. Such integration could help standardise methodologies across studies, improving comparability and the reliability of pooled evidence. Furthermore, the development of consensus guidelines for the implementation and reporting of field-based muscular strength tests is essential to enhance cross-study comparability and reproducibility. Establishing standardised protocols for commonly used tests, such as HGS test and 5-CST, alongside clear reporting criteria for measurement units, repetitions and cut-off values, will facilitate the consistency of research findings and support their clinical applicability.

Additionally, it is recommended that future studies track co-existing long-term health conditions as part of the clinical complexity of general adult populations²⁰⁴ and examine how specific patterns of health conditions (eg, number, accumulation, clusters, trajectories) may influence the associations under investigation. In our study, exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted at the study level using aggregated data, rather than individual participant data, which limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the influence of coexisting long-term health conditions on the associations observed. Moreover, considering known biological and social differences by sex and age, further studies are recommended to analyse the influence of these factors in more detail. Additionally, given the potential impact of population health profiles, healthcare systems, lifestyle factors and disease burden across different contexts, our findings highlight the need for future research to include underrepresented populations, such as those from specific regions (ie, Africa, Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean), low-income countries and ethnically diverse groups, to enhance the generalisability, equity and applicability of evidence related to field-based muscular strength tests and long-term health conditions.

Conclusions

This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence supporting predictive validity of the HGS test and the 5-CST across a broad spectrum of long-term health conditions among adults. Both tests emerge as simple and accessible tools that may be useful for preventive healthcare and intervention planning in clinical practice. Notably, HGS was by far the most used field-based muscular strength test, with evidence of varying certainty supporting its clinical prognostic value across multiple long-term health conditions. Subgroup analyses suggested that predictive associations were generally consistent across diverse population groups, with some specific variations. Stronger associations were observed between muscular strength and musculoskeletal impairment, disability, cognitive decline and dementia in older adults, and cardiovascular disease in middle-aged adults. Additionally, disability, depression and cognitive decline showed stronger associations among women, whereas T2DM and musculoskeletal impairment showed a stronger association among men. Overall, our findings reinforce the widespread applicability of field-based muscular strength tests as valuable measures for health monitoring and risk stratification in clinical practice, emphasising their role in the early identification of individuals at greater risk of developing long-term health conditions. These findings ultimately highlight the clinical and public health relevance of integrating simple muscular strength assessments into routine evaluations, as they can meaningfully contribute to early prevention, personalised care and healthier ageing trajectories. However, given that the certainty of evidence varied substantially across long-term health conditions, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality longitudinal studies are warranted, particularly for long-term health conditions with limited evidence or rated as low or very low certainty, to strengthen the evidence base and improve confidence in these associations.

Supplementary material

The content and views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada. The work was not undertaken under the auspices of employment with the Government of Canada.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

References

1. Das M. WHO urges immediate action to tackle non-communicable diseases. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1361. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00606-4.
2. Momma H, Kawakami R, Honda T, et al. Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56:755–63. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-105061.
3. García-Hermoso A, Cavero-Redondo I, Ramírez-Vélez R, et al. Muscular Strength as a Predictor of All-Cause Mortality in an Apparently Healthy Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Data From Approximately 2 Million Men and Women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:2100–13. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.01.008.
4. Castro-Piñero J, Artero EG, España-Romero V, et al. Criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in youth: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:934–43. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.058321.
5. Wu Y, Wang W, Liu T, et al. Association of Grip Strength With Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Cancer in Community-Dwelling Populations: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:551. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.03.011.
6. Kunutsor SK, Isiozor NM, Khan H, et al. Handgrip strength-A risk indicator for type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2021;37:e3365. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3365.
7. Shaughnessy KA, Hackney KJ, Clark BC, et al. A Narrative Review of Handgrip Strength and Cognitive Functioning: Bringing a New Characteristic to Muscle Memory. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease . 2020;73:1265–78. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190856.
8. Smith L, White S, Stubbs B, et al. Depressive symptoms, handgrip strength, and weight status in US older adults. J Affect Disord. 2018;238:305–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.06.016.
9. Wang DXM, Yao J, Zirek Y, et al. Muscle mass, strength, and physical performance predicting activities of daily living: a meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:3–25. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12502.
10. Kunutsor SK, Seidu S, Voutilainen A, et al. Handgrip strength-a risk indicator for future fractures in the general population: findings from a prospective study and meta-analysis of 19 prospective cohort studies. Geroscience. 2021;43:869–80. doi: 10.1007/s11357-020-00251-8.
11. Soysal P, Hurst C, Demurtas J, et al. Handgrip strength and health outcomes: Umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10:290–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.06.009.
12. Lee J. Associations Between Handgrip Strength and Disease-Specific Mortality Including Cancer, Cardiovascular, and Respiratory Diseases in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis. J Aging Phys Act. 2019;28:320–31. doi: 10.1123/japa.2018-0348.
13. López-Bueno R, Andersen LL, Calatayud J, et al. Associations of handgrip strength with all-cause and cancer mortality in older adults: a prospective cohort study in 28 countries. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac117. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac117.
14. Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The Lancet. 2015;386:266–73. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62000-6.
15. Riley RD, Moons KGM, Snell KIE, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ. 2019;364:k4597. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4597.
16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
17. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton S, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
18. Morgan RL, Whaley P, Thayer KA, et al. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ Int. 2018;121:1027–31. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015.
19. Cuenca-Garcia M, Marin-Jimenez N, Perez-Bey A, et al. Reliability of Field-Based Fitness Tests in Adults: A Systematic Review. Sports Med . 2022;52:1961–79. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01635-2.
20. Castro-Piñero J, Marin-Jimenez N, Fernandez-Santos JR, et al. Criterion-Related Validity of Field-Based Fitness Tests in Adults: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3743. doi: 10.3390/jcm10163743.
21. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The newcastle-ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000
22. De Cassai A, Boscolo A, Zarantonello F, et al. Enhancing study quality assessment: an in-depth review of risk of bias tools for meta-analysis-a comprehensive guide for anesthesiologists. J Anesth Analg Crit Care . 2023;3:44. doi: 10.1186/s44158-023-00129-z.
23. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, et al. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:280–6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009.
24. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.
25. Camargo EC, Weinstein G, Beiser AS, et al. Association of Physical Function with Clinical and Subclinical Brain Disease: The Framingham Offspring Study. J Alzheimers Dis . 2016;53:1597–608. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160229.
26. Weber A, Leitzmann MF, Sedlmeier AM, et al. Association between physical activity, grip strength and sedentary behaviour with incidence of malignant melanoma: results from the UK Biobank. Br J Cancer. 2021;125:593–600. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01443-5.
27. Jeon Y-J, Lee SK, Shin C. Normalized Hand Grip and Back Muscle Strength as Risk Factors for Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: 16 Years of Follow-Up in a Population-Based Cohort Study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2021;14:741–50. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S283853.
28. Wander PL, Boyko EJ, Leonetti DL, et al. Greater hand-grip strength predicts a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes over 10 years in leaner Japanese Americans. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;92:261–4. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.01.007.
29. den Ouden MEM, Schuurmans MJ, Brand JS, et al. Physical functioning is related to both an impaired physical ability and ADL disability: A ten year follow-up study in middle-aged and older persons. Maturitas. 2013;74:89–94. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.011.
30. McDowell CP, Gordon BR, Herring MP. Sex-related differences in the association between grip strength and depression: Results from the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing. Exp Gerontol. 2018;104:147–52. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2018.02.010.
31. Zhao Z, Ji C, Liu Y, et al. Higher handgrip strength predicts a lower risk of depressive symptoms in rural Chinese populations. J Affect Disord. 2020;269:12–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.028.
32. Alajlouni D, Tran T, Bliuc D, et al. Muscle Strength and Physical Performance Improve Fracture Risk Prediction Beyond Garvan and FRAX: The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;37:411–9. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4483.
33. Larsen BA, Wassel CL, Kritchevsky SB, et al. Association of Muscle Mass, Area, and Strength With Incident Diabetes in Older Adults: The Health ABC Study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2016;101:1847–55. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-3643.
34. Katzmarzyk PT, Craig CL, Gauvin L. Adiposity, physical fitness and incident diabetes: the physical activity longitudinal study. Diabetologia. 2007;50:538–44. doi: 10.1007/s00125-006-0554-3.
35. Taekema DG, Gussekloo J, Maier AB, et al. Handgrip strength as a predictor of functional, psychological and social health. A prospective population-based study among the oldest old. Age Ageing. 2010;39:331–7. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq022.
36. Auyeung TW, Lee JSW, Kwok T, et al. Physical frailty predicts future cognitive decline - a four-year prospective study in 2737 cognitively normal older adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2011;15:690–4. doi: 10.1007/s12603-011-0110-9.
37. Ishizaki T, Watanabe S, Suzuki T, et al. Predictors for functional decline among nondisabled older Japanese living in a community during a 3-year follow-up. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:1424–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02632.x.
38. López-Teros T, Gutiérrez-Robledo LM, Pérez-Zepeda MU. Gait Speed and Handgrip Strength as Predictors of Incident Disability in Mexican Older Adults. J Frailty Aging. 2014;3:109–12. doi: 10.14283/jfa.2014.10.
39. Buchman AS, Wilson RS, Boyle PA, et al. Grip strength and the risk of incident Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroepidemiology. 2007;29:66–73. doi: 10.1159/000109498.
40. Kang M, Lee I, Hong H, et al. Predictors of Changes in Cognitive Function in Older Korean Adults: The 2006-2018 Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:6345. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126345.
41. Li G, Lu Y, Shao L, et al. Handgrip strength is associated with risks of new-onset stroke and heart disease: results from 3 prospective cohorts. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23:268. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-03953-8.
42. Pham T, McNeil JJ, Barker AL, et al. Longitudinal association between handgrip strength, gait speed and risk of serious falls in a community-dwelling older population. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0285530. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285530.
43. Guo T, Zhang F, Xiong L, et al. Association of Handgrip Strength with Hip Fracture and Falls in Community-dwelling Middle-aged and Older Adults: A 4-Year Longitudinal Study. Orthop Surg. 2024;16:1051–63. doi: 10.1111/os.14029.
44. Zhang B, Wang X, Gu Y, et al. The association between grip strength and incident carotid atherosclerosis in middle-aged and older adults: The TCLSIH cohort study. Maturitas. 2023;167:53–9. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.09.008.
45. Welmer A-K, Rizzuto D, Laukka EJ, et al. Cognitive and Physical Function in Relation to the Risk of Injurious Falls in Older Adults: A Population-Based Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72:669–75. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw141.
46. Zhong B-X, Zhong H-L, Zhou G-Q, et al. Physical performance and risk of hip fracture in community-dwelling elderly people in China: A 4-year longitudinal cohort study. Maturitas. 2021;146:26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2021.01.003.
47. Norton EC, Dowd BE, Maciejewski ML. Odds Ratios-Current Best Practice and Use. JAMA. 2018;320:84–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.6971.
48. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane. 2023. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of onterventions version 6.4 (updated august 2023)https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook Available.
49. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. Simple Heterogeneity Variance Estimation for Meta-Analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2005;54:367–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00489.x.
50. Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, et al. The FNIH Sarcopenia Project: Rationale, Study Description, Conference Recommendations, and Final Estimates. The Journals of Gerontology. 2014;69:547–58. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glu010.
51. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146–56. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146.
52. Dupont J. Revised sarcopenia consensus: are we missing the preclinical stage? online comment on. age and ageing. 48:1.
53. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–23. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq034.
54. Chen L-K, Liu L-K, Woo J, et al. Sarcopenia in Asia: consensus report of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15:95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.11.025.
55. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Mental Health . 2019;22:153–60. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117.
56. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
57. Chen H, Cohen P, Chen S. How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation. 2010;39:860–4.
58. Cheung M-L. Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychol Methods. 2014;19:211. doi: 10.1037/a0032968.
59. Van den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marín-Martínez F, et al. Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behav Res. 2013;45:576–94. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6.
60. Welmer A-K, Rizzuto D, Laukka EJ, et al. Cognitive and Physical Function in Relation to the Risk of Injurious Falls in Older Adults: A Population-Based Study. GERONA . 2017;72:glw141. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw141.
61. Kamiya K, Kajita E, Tachiki T, et al. Association between hand-grip strength and site-specific risks of major osteoporotic fracture: Results from the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis Cohort Study. Maturitas. 2019;130:13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.09.008.
62. Marques-Vidal P, Vollenweider P, Waeber G, et al. Grip strength is not associated with incident type 2 diabetes mellitus in healthy adults: The CoLaus study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;132:144–8. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.004.
63. Al Snih S, Markides KS, Ottenbacher KJ, et al. Hand grip strength and incident ADL disability in elderly Mexican Americans over a seven-year period. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16:481–6. doi: 10.1007/BF03327406.
64. WebPlotDigitizer RA. Io/webplotdigitizer: version. 2019. https://automeris Available.
65. Higgins JPT, Morgan RL, Rooney AA, et al. A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) Environ Int. 2024;186:108602. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108602.
66. Celis-Morales CA, Welsh P, Lyall DM, et al. Associations of grip strength with cardiovascular, respiratory, and cancer outcomes and all cause mortality: prospective cohort study of half a million UK Biobank participants. BMJ. 2018;361:k1651. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1651.
67. Gubelmann C, Vollenweider P, Marques-Vidal P. No association between grip strength and cardiovascular risk: The CoLaus population-based study. Int J Cardiol. 2017;236:478–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.01.110.
68. Ho FKW, Celis-Morales CA, Petermann-Rocha F, et al. The association of grip strength with health outcomes does not differ if grip strength is used in absolute or relative terms: a prospective cohort study. Age Ageing. 2019;48:684–91. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afz068.
69. Jang S, Kim J, Lee Y. Effect of relative handgrip strength on cardiovascular disease among Korean adults aged 45 years and older: Results from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (2006–2016) Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;86:103937. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2019.103937.
70. Klinpudtan N, Kabayama M, Godai K, et al. Association between physical function and onset of coronary heart disease in a cohort of community-dwelling older populations: The SONIC study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;95:104386. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2021.104386.
71. Kim Y, Hwang S, Sharp SJ, et al. Genetic Risk, Muscle Strength, and Incident Stroke: Findings From the UK Biobank Study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:1746–57. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.01.034.
72. Liu G, Xue Y, Wang S, et al. Association between hand grip strength and stroke in China: a prospective cohort study. Aging (Milano) 2021;13:8204–13. doi: 10.18632/aging.202630.
73. Liu D, Yang C, Liu G, et al. Association between grip strength, walking pace and incident peripheral artery disease: A prospective study of 430,886 UK biobank participants. International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention . 2024;23:200330. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200330.
74. McGrath R, Lee D-C, Kraemer WJ, et al. Weakness is Associated with Time to Incident Chronic Heart Failure in Aging Americans. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging . 2020;24:16–9. doi: 10.1007/s12603-019-1266-y.
75. Peralta M, Dias CM, Marques A, et al. Longitudinal association between grip strength and the risk of heart diseases among European middle-aged and older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2023;171:112014. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2022.112014.
76. Qi K, Li Q, Lu G, et al. The combined effect of handgrip strength and obesity phenotype on the risk of stroke in Chinese middle-aged and elderly: A cohort study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2024;124:105481. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2024.105481.
77. Sillars A, Celis-Morales CA, Ho FK, et al. Association of Fitness and Grip Strength With Heart Failure: Findings From the UK Biobank Population-Based Study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94:2230–40. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.04.041.
78. Yan L, Ge H, Wang Z, et al. Roles of low muscle strength and sarcopenic obesity on incident symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A longitudinal cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2024;19:e0311423. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311423.
79. Zhang F, Luo B, Bai Y, et al. Association of handgrip strength and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population-based cohort study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2024;36:207. doi: 10.1007/s40520-024-02856-x.
80. Parra-Soto S, Tumblety C, Ho FK, et al. Associations Between Relative Grip Strength and the Risk of 15 Cancer Sites. Am J Prev Med. 2022;62:e87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.07.015.
81. Parra-Soto S, Pell JP, Celis-Morales C, et al. Absolute and relative grip strength as predictors of cancer: prospective cohort study of 445 552 participants in UK Biobank. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:325–32. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12863.
82. Boonpor J, Parra-Soto S, Petermann-Rocha F, et al. Associations between grip strength and incident type 2 diabetes: findings from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9:e001865. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001865.
83. Hao G, Chen H, Ying Y, et al. The Relative Handgrip Strength and Risk of Cardiometabolic Disorders: A Prospective Study. Front Physiol. 2020;11:719. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00719.
84. He Y-Y, Jin M-L, Fang X-Y, et al. Associations of muscle mass and strength with new-onset diabetes among middle-aged and older adults: evidence from the China health and retirement longitudinal study (CHARLS) Acta Diabetol. 2024;61:869–78. doi: 10.1007/s00592-024-02265-6.
85. Karvonen-Gutierrez CA, Peng Q, Peterson M, et al. Low grip strength predicts incident diabetes among mid-life women: the Michigan Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation. Age Ageing. 2018;47:685–91. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy067.
86. Kowall B. Lower body muscle strength, dynapenic obesity and risk of type 2 diabetes -longitudinal results on the chair-stand test from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:924. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-03647-7.
87. Kunutsor SK, Voutilainen A, Laukkanen JA. Handgrip strength improves prediction of type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Ann Med. 2020;52:471–8. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2020.1815078.
88. Lee S-B, Jo M-K, Moon J-E, et al. Relationship between Handgrip Strength and Incident Diabetes in Korean Adults According to Gender: A Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study. J Clin Med. 2024;13:627. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020627.
89. Li G, Qiao Y, Lu Y, et al. Role of handgrip strength in predicting new-onset diabetes: findings from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02382-9.
90. Li JJ, Wittert GA, Vincent A, et al. Muscle grip strength predicts incident type 2 diabetes: Population-based cohort study. Metab Clin Exp. 2016;65:883–92. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2016.03.011.
91. Manda CM, Hokimoto T, Okura T, et al. Handgrip strength predicts new prediabetes cases among adults: A prospective cohort study. Prev Med Rep. 2020;17:101056. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101056.
92. McGrath R, Vincent BM, Al Snih S, et al. The Association Between Muscle Weakness and Incident Diabetes in Older Mexican Americans. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:452. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.01.017.
93. Momma H, Sawada SS, Kato K, et al. Physical Fitness Tests and Type 2 Diabetes Among Japanese: A Longitudinal Study From the Niigata Wellness Study. J Epidemiol. 2019;29:139–46. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20170280.
94. Park D, Rho J, Kim E, et al. Comparison of Absolute and Relative Grip Strength to Predict Incidence of Diabetes Mellitus in Korea: A Prospective Cohort Study. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2024;22:463–70. doi: 10.1089/met.2024.0006.
95. Qiu S, Cai X, Liang Y, et al. Cumulative muscle strength and risk of diabetes: A prospective cohort study with mediation analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2023;197:110562. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110562.
96. Sohn YJ, Lee HS, Bae H, et al. Association of relative handgrip strength on the development of diabetes mellitus in elderly Koreans. PLoS One. 2024;19:e0309558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309558.
97. Zheng J, Zhang L, Jiang M. Lower handgrip strength levels probably precede triglyceride glucose index and associated with diabetes in men not in women. J Diabetes Investig. 2022;13:148–55. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13626.
98. Albrand G, Munoz F, Sornay-Rendu E, et al. Independent predictors of all osteoporosis-related fractures in healthy postmenopausal women: the OFELY study. Bone. 2003;32:78–85. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(02)00919-5.
99. Beauchamp MK, Kuspinar A, Sohel N, et al. Mobility screening for fall prediction in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA): implications for fall prevention in the decade of healthy ageing. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac095. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac095.
100. Cawthon PM, Fullman RL, Marshall L, et al. Physical performance and risk of hip fractures in older men. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23:1037–44. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.080227.
101. Cheung C-L, Tan KCB, Bow CH, et al. Low handgrip strength is a predictor of osteoporotic fractures: cross-sectional and prospective evidence from the Hong Kong Osteoporosis Study. Age (Dordr) 2012;34:1239–48. doi: 10.1007/s11357-011-9297-2.
102. Delbaere K, Van den Noortgate N, Bourgois J, et al. The Physical Performance Test as a predictor of frequent fallers: a prospective community-based cohort study. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:83–90. doi: 10.1191/0269215506cr885oa.
103. Finigan J, Greenfield DM, Blumsohn A, et al. Risk factors for vertebral and nonvertebral fracture over 10 years: a population-based study in women. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23:75–85. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.070814.
104. Hussain MA, Qaisar R, Karim A, et al. Predictors of hip fracture in 15 European countries: a longitudinal study of 48,533 geriatric adults using SHARE dataset. Arch Osteoporos. 2024;19:60. doi: 10.1007/s11657-024-01420-4.
105. Kärkkäinen M, Rikkonen T, Kröger H, et al. Association between functional capacity tests and fractures: an eight-year prospective population-based cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:1203–10. doi: 10.1007/s00198-008-0561-y.
106. Minneci C, Mello AM, Mossello E, et al. Comparative study of four physical performance measures as predictors of death, incident disability, and falls in unselected older persons: the insufficienza Cardiaca negli Anziani Residenti a Dicomano Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:136–41. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13195.
107. Muraki S, Akune T, Ishimoto Y, et al. Risk factors for falls in a longitudinal population-based cohort study of Japanese men and women: the ROAD Study. Bone. 2013;52:516–23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.020.
108. Ooi TC, Singh DKA, Shahar S, et al. Incidence and multidimensional predictors of occasional and recurrent falls among Malaysian community-dwelling older persons. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02103-2.
109. Roongbenjawan N, Siriphorn A. Accuracy of modified 30-s chair-stand test for predicting falls in older adults. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63:309–15. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.08.003.
110. Rikkonen T, Sirola J, Salovaara K, et al. Muscle strength and body composition are clinical indicators of osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2012;91:131–8. doi: 10.1007/s00223-012-9618-1.
111. Rouzi AA, Ardawi M-SM, Qari MH, et al. Risk factors for falls in a longitudinal cohort study of Saudi postmenopausal women: the Center of Excellence for Osteoporosis Research Study. Menopause. 2015;22:1012–20. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000418.
112. Schaap LA, van Schoor NM, Lips P, et al. Associations of Sarcopenia Definitions, and Their Components, With the Incidence of Recurrent Falling and Fractures: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. The Journals of Gerontology. 2018;73:1199–204. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glx245.
113. Søgaard AJ, Magnus JH, Bjørnerem Å, et al. Grip strength in men and women aged 50–79 years is associated with non-vertebral osteoporotic fracture during 15 years follow-up: The Tromsø Study 1994–1995. Osteoporos Int. 2020;31:131–40. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05191-4.
114. Stel VS, Pluijm SMF, Deeg DJH, et al. Functional limitations and poor physical performance as independent risk factors for self-reported fractures in older persons. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:742–50. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1604-7.
115. Stel VS, Smit JH, Pluijm SMF, et al. Balance and mobility performance as treatable risk factors for recurrent falling in older persons. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:659–68. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00082-9.
116. Valenzuela PL, Maffiuletti NA, Saner H, et al. Isometric Strength Measures are Superior to the Timed Up and Go Test for Fall Prediction in Older Adults: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;15:2001–8. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S276828.
117. Wang Y, Li Z, Li M, et al. The relationship between asymmetrical grip strength criteria and fall incidence among middle-aged and older Chinese adults. Eur Geriatr Med. 2024;15:1291–300. doi: 10.1007/s41999-024-01011-z.
118. Zhang F, Ferrucci L, Culham E, et al. Performance on five times sit-to-stand task as a predictor of subsequent falls and disability in older persons. J Aging Health. 2013;25:478–92. doi: 10.1177/0898264313475813.
119. Zhou R, Li JY, Chen ML. The Value of Cognitive and Physical Function Tests in Predicting Falls in Older Adults: A Prospective Study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:900488. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.900488.
120. Burbank CM, Branscum A, Bovbjerg ML, et al. Muscle power predicts frailty status over four years: A retrospective cohort study of the National Health and Aging Trends Study. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls . 2023;8:1–8. doi: 10.22540/JFSF-08-001.
121. Carrière I, Colvez A, Favier F, et al. Hierarchical components of physical frailty predicted incidence of dependency in a cohort of elderly women. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1180–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.018.
122. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events: results from the Health, Aging And Body Composition Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:251–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02126.x.
123. Chan OYA, van Houwelingen AH, Gussekloo J, et al. Comparison of quadriceps strength and handgrip strength in their association with health outcomes in older adults in primary care. Age (Dordr) 2014;36:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11357-014-9714-4.
124. Coelho-Júnior HJ, Calvani R, Álvarez-Bustos A, et al. Physical performance and negative events in very old adults: a longitudinal study examining the ilSIRENTE cohort. Aging Clin Exp Res . 2024;36:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s40520-024-02693-y.
125. Dai S, Wang S, Jiang S, et al. Bidirectional association between handgrip strength and ADLs disability: a prospective cohort study. Front Public Health. 2023;11 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1200821.
126. Dodds RM, Kuh D, Sayer AA, et al. Can measures of physical performance in mid-life improve the clinical prediction of disability in early old age? Findings from a British birth cohort study. Exp Gerontol. 2018;110:118–24. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2018.06.001.
127. Giampaoli S, Ferrucci L, Cecchi F, et al. Hand-grip strength predicts incident disability in non-disabled older men. Age Ageing. 1999;28:283–8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/28.3.283.
128. Gill TM, Williams CS, Tinetti ME. Assessing risk for the onset of functional dependence among older adults: the role of physical performance. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43:603–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb07192.x.
129. Gonzalez-Bautista E, de Souto Barreto P, Salinas-Rodriguez A, et al. Development and Validation of a Cutoff for the Chair Stand Test as a Screening for Mobility Impairment in the Context of the Integrated Care for Older People Program. The Journals of Gerontology. 2023;78:104–10. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glac055.
130. Huang YC, Dong Y, Tang CM, et al. Mortality and disability risk among older adults unable to complete grip strength and physical performance tests: a population-based cohort study from China. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:797. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18258-7.
131. Hicks GE, Shardell M, Alley DE, et al. Absolute Strength and Loss of Strength as Predictors of Mobility Decline in Older Adults: The InCHIANTI Study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences . 2012;67A:66–73. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glr055.
132. Jung S, Yabushita N, Kim M, et al. Obesity and Muscle Weakness as Risk Factors for Mobility Limitation in Community-Dwelling Older Japanese Women: A Two-Year Follow-Up Investigation. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20:28–34. doi: 10.1007/s12603-016-0672-7.
133. Legrand D, Vaes B, Matheï C, et al. Muscle strength and physical performance as predictors of mortality, hospitalization, and disability in the oldest old. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:1030–8. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12840.
134. Marincolo JCS, Assumpção D de, Santimaria MR, et al. Low grip strength and gait speed as markers of dependence regarding basic activities of daily living: the FIBRA study. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2024;22:eAO0637. doi: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2024AO0637.
135. Morera Á, Calatayud J, Casaña J, et al. Handgrip strength and work limitations: A prospective cohort study of 70,820 adults aged 50 and older. Maturitas. 2023;177 doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2023.107798.
136. Okabe T, Abe Y, Tomita Y, et al. Age‐specific risk factors for incident disability in activities of daily living among middle‐aged and elderly community‐dwelling Japanese women during an 8–9‐year follow up: The Hizen‐Oshima study. Geriatrics Gerontology Int . 2017;17:1096–101. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12834.
137. Peterson MD, Casten K, Collins S, et al. Muscle weakness is a prognostic indicator of disability and chronic disease multimorbidity. Exp Gerontol. 2021;152:111462. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2021.111462.
138. Rantanen T, Guralnik JM, Foley D, et al. Midlife hand grip strength as a predictor of old age disability. JAMA. 1999;281:558–60. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.6.558.
139. Seidel D, Brayne C, Jagger C. Limitations in physical functioning among older people as a predictor of subsequent disability in instrumental activities of daily living. Age Ageing. 2011;40:463–9. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afr054.
140. Shinkai S, Kumagai S, Fujiwara Y, et al. Predictors for the onset of functional decline among initially non‐disabled older people living in a community during a 6‐year follow‐up. Geriatrics Gerontology Int . 2003;3:S31–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0594.2003.00094.x.
141. Song Q, Shu X, Li Y, et al. Association of handgrip strength asymmetry and weakness with functional disability among middle-aged and older adults in China. J Glob Health. 2024;14:04047. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04047.
142. Stessman J, Rottenberg Y, Fischer M, et al. Handgrip Strength in Old and Very Old Adults: Mood, Cognition, Function, and Mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65:526–32. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14509.
143. Zhang L, Chen Y, Liu J, et al. Novel physical performance-based models for activities of daily living disability prediction among Chinese older community population: a nationally representative survey in China. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:267. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-02905-y.
144. Cabanas-Sánchez V, Esteban-Cornejo I, Parra-Soto S, et al. Muscle strength and incidence of depression and anxiety: findings from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:1983–94. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12963.
145. Carvalho AF, Maes M, Solmi M, et al. Is dynapenia associated with the onset and persistence of depressive and anxiety symptoms among older adults? Findings from the Irish longitudinal study on ageing. Aging & Mental Health . 2021;25:468–75. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2019.1699021.
146. Gordon BR, McDowell CP, Lyons M, et al. Associations between grip strength and generalized anxiety disorder in older adults: Results from the Irish longitudinal study on ageing. J Affect Disord. 2019;255:136–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.05.043.
147. Bao M, Chao J, Sheng M, et al. Longitudinal association between muscle strength and depression in middle-aged and older adults: A 7-year prospective cohort study in China. J Affect Disord. 2022;301:81–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.01.036.
148. Chan LLY, Delbaere K, Numbers K, et al. Poor mobility and lower limb weakness are associated with three distinct depressive symptom trajectories over 6 years in older people. Australas J Ageing. 2024;43:333–42. doi: 10.1111/ajag.13273.
149. Gu Y, Zhang T, Wang J, et al. Genetic risk, muscle strength and risk of incident major depressive disorder: results from the UK Biobank. Age Ageing. 2023;52:afad021. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afad021.
150. Hamer M, Batty GD, Kivimaki M. Sarcopenic obesity and risk of new onset depressive symptoms in older adults: English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Int J Obes. 2015;39:1717–20. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2015.124.
151. Lian Y, Wang G-P, Chen G-Q, et al. Bidirectional Associations between Handgrip Strength and Depressive Symptoms: A Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22:1744–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.04.006.
152. López-Bueno R, Calatayud J, Andersen LL, et al. Dose-response association of handgrip strength and risk of depression: a longitudinal study of 115 601 older adults from 24 countries. Br J Psychiatry. 2023;222:135–42. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2022.178.
153. Luo J, Yao W, Zhang T, et al. Exploring the bidirectional associations between handgrip strength and depression in middle and older Americans. J Psychosom Res. 2022;152:110678. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110678.
154. Mendorf S, Schönenberg A, Heimrich KG, et al. Prospective associations between hand grip strength and subsequent depressive symptoms in men and women aged 50 years and older: insights from the Survey of Health, Aging, and Retirement in Europe. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023;10:1260371. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1260371.
155. Song Q, Shu X, Zhao Y, et al. Association of handgrip strength asymmetry and weakness with depression among middle-aged and older population in China: A cohort study. J Affect Disord. 2024;363:401–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.07.120.
156. Veronese N, Stubbs B, Trevisan C, et al. Poor Physical Performance Predicts Future Onset of Depression in Elderly People: Progetto Veneto Anziani Longitudinal Study. Phys Ther. 2017;97:659–68. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx017.
157. Zheng H, He Q, Xu H, et al. Lower grip strength and insufficient physical activity can increase depressive symptoms among middle-aged and older European adults: a longitudinal study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-03392-x.
158. Balogun S, Winzenberg T, Wills K, et al. Prospective associations of low muscle mass and strength with health-related quality of life over 10-year in community-dwelling older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2019;118:65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2019.01.008.
159. Gómez-Bruton A, López-Torres O, Gómez-Cabello A, et al. How important is current physical fitness for future quality of life? Results from an 8-year longitudinal study on older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2021;149:111301. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2021.111301.
160. Gum AM, Segal-Karpas D, Avidor S, et al. Grip strength and quality of life in the second half of life: hope as a moderator. Aging Ment Health. 2018;22:1600–5. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1383972.
161. Alfaro-Acha A, Al Snih S, Raji MA, et al. Handgrip strength and cognitive decline in older Mexican Americans. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61:859–65. doi: 10.1093/gerona/61.8.859.
162. Boyle PA, Buchman AS, Wilson RS, et al. Association of muscle strength with the risk of Alzheimer disease and the rate of cognitive decline in community-dwelling older persons. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1339–44. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2009.240.
163. Chen Z, Ho M, Chau PH. Handgrip strength asymmetry is associated with the risk of neurodegenerative disorders among Chinese older adults. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:1013–23. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12933.
164. Chou M-Y, Nishita Y, Nakagawa T, et al. Role of gait speed and grip strength in predicting 10-year cognitive decline among community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1199-7.
165. Feng W, Chen Q, Ma M, et al. Sex-modified association between grip strength and mild cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional and follow-up study in rural China. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23:710. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04376-1.
166. Heward J, Stone L, Paddick S-M, et al. A longitudinal study of cognitive decline in rural Tanzania: rates and potentially modifiable risk factors. Int Psychogeriatr. 2018;30:1333–43. doi: 10.1017/S1041610217002861.
167. Jeong S, Kim J. Prospective Association of Handgrip Strength with Risk of New-Onset Cognitive Dysfunction in Korean Adults: A 6-Year National Cohort Study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018;244:83–91. doi: 10.1620/tjem.244.83.
168. Jeong S, Choi S, Kim K, et al. Association among handgrip strength, body mass index and decline in cognitive function among the elderly women. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0918-9.
169. Jiang R, Westwater ML, Noble S, et al. Associations between grip strength, brain structure, and mental health in > 40,000 participants from the UK Biobank. BMC Med. 2022;20:1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02490-2.
170. Kim J-H. Effect of grip strength on mental health. J Affect Disord. 2019;245:371–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.017.
171. Kim K, Kim H. Handgrip Strength and Cognitive Function among Elderly Koreans: Insights from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing. IJERPH. 2022;19:5262. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095262.
172. Kim GR, Sun J, Han M, et al. Evaluation of the directional relationship between handgrip strength and cognitive function: the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Age Ageing. 2019;48:426–32. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afz013.
173. Kim KH, Park SK, Lee DR, et al. The Relationship between Handgrip Strength and Cognitive Function in Elderly Koreans over 8 Years: A Prospective Population-Based Study Using Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Korean J Fam Med. 2019;40:9–15. doi: 10.4082/kjfm.17.0074.
174. McGrath R, Robinson-Lane SG, Cook S, et al. Handgrip Strength Is Associated with Poorer Cognitive Functioning in Aging Americans. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease . 2019;70:1187–96. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190042.
175. McGrath R, Vincent BM, Hackney KJ, et al. The Longitudinal Associations of Handgrip Strength and Cognitive Function in Aging Americans. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:634–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.08.032.
176. Peng T-C, Chiou J-M, Chen T-F, et al. Grip Strength and Sarcopenia Predict 2-Year Cognitive Impairment in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023;24:292–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.10.015.
177. Peng T-C, Chiou J-M, Chen Y-C, et al. Handgrip strength asymmetry and cognitive impairment risk: Insights from a seven-year prospective cohort study. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging . 2024;28:100004. doi: 10.1016/j.jnha.2023.100004.
178. Sattler C, Erickson KI, Toro P, et al. Physical Fitness as a Protective Factor for Cognitive Impairment in a Prospective Population-Based Study in Germany. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease . 2011;26:709–18. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2011-110548.
179. Stijntjes M, Aartsen MJ, Taekema DG, et al. Temporal Relationship Between Cognitive and Physical Performance in Middle-Aged to Oldest Old People. GERONA . 2017;72:glw133. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw133.
180. Veronese N, Stubbs B, Trevisan C, et al. What physical performance measures predict incident cognitive decline among intact older adults? A 4.4year follow up study. Exp Gerontol. 2016;81:110–8. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2016.05.008.
181. Werneck AO, Araujo RHO, Silva DR, et al. Handgrip strength, physical activity and incident mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Maturitas. 2023;176 doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2023.107789.
182. Doi T, Tsutsumimoto K, Nakakubo S, et al. Physical Performance Predictors for Incident Dementia Among Japanese Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Phys Ther. 2019;99:1132–40. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzz077.
183. Duchowny KA, Ackley SF, Brenowitz WD, et al. Associations Between Handgrip Strength and Dementia Risk, Cognition, and Neuroimaging Outcomes in the UK Biobank Cohort Study. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2218314. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.18314.
184. Esteban‐Cornejo I, Ho FK, Petermann‐Rocha F, et al. Handgrip strength and all‐cause dementia incidence and mortality: findings from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study. J cachexia sarcopenia muscle. 2022;13:1514–25. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12857.
185. Hatabe Y, Shibata M, Ohara T, et al. Decline in Handgrip Strength From Midlife to Late-Life is Associated With Dementia in a Japanese Community: The Hisayama Study. J Epidemiol. 2020;30:15–23. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20180137.
186. He P, Zhou C, Ye Z, et al. Walking pace, handgrip strength, age, APOE genotypes, and new-onset dementia: the UK Biobank prospective cohort study. Alz Res Therapy . 2023;15:9. doi: 10.1186/s13195-022-01158-6.
187. Kuo K, Zhang Y, Chen S, et al. Associations of grip strength, walking pace, and the risk of incident dementia: A prospective cohort study of 340212 participants. Alzheimer's & Dementia . 2023;19:1415–27. doi: 10.1002/alz.12793.
188. Sibbett RA, Russ TC, Allerhand M, et al. Physical fitness and dementia risk in the very old: a study of the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18:285. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1851-3.
189. Stephan Y, Sutin AR, Luchetti M, et al. Balance, Strength, and Risk of Dementia: Findings From the Health and Retirement Study and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2024;79:glae165. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glae165.
190. Liu M, He P, Ye Z, et al. Association of handgrip strength and walking pace with incident Parkinson’s disease. J cachexia sarcopenia muscle. 2024;15:198–207. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13366.
191. Mey R, Calatayud J, Casaña J, et al. Is Handgrip Strength Associated With Parkinson’s Disease? Longitudinal Study of 71 702 Older Adults. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2023;37:727–33. doi: 10.1177/15459683231207359.
192. Wu K-M, Kuo K, Deng Y-T, et al. Association of grip strength and walking pace with the risk of incident Parkinson’s disease: a prospective cohort study of 422,531 participants. J Neurol. 2024;271:2529–38. doi: 10.1007/s00415-024-12194-7.
193. Sirola J, Tuppurainen M, Rikkonen T, et al. Correlates and predictors of self-rated health and ambulatory status among elderly women - Cross-sectional and 10 years population-based cohort study. Maturitas. 2010;65:244–52. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.11.014.
194. Yang Z, Wei J, Liu H, et al. Changes in muscle strength and risk of cardiovascular disease among middle-aged and older adults in China: Evidence from a prospective cohort study. Chin Med J. 2024;137:1343–50. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002968.
195. Vaishya R, Misra A, Vaish A, et al. Hand grip strength as a proposed new vital sign of health: a narrative review of evidences. J Health Popul Nutr. 2024;43:7. doi: 10.1186/s41043-024-00500-y.
196. Bohannon RW. Minimal clinically important difference for grip strength: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2019;31:75–8. doi: 10.1589/jpts.31.75.
197. Kim SH, Kim T, Park J-C, et al. Usefulness of hand grip strength to estimate other physical fitness parameters in older adults. Sci Rep. 2022;12:17496. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22477-6.
198. Muñoz-Bermejo L, Adsuar JC, Mendoza-Muñoz M, et al. Test-Retest Reliability of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (FTSST) in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biology (Basel) 2021;10:510. doi: 10.3390/biology10060510.
199. Rouzi AA, Ardawi M-S, Qari M, et al. Risk factors for falls in a longitudinal cohort study of Saudi postmenopausal women: the Center of Excellence for Osteoporosis Research Study. Menopause. 2015;22:1012–20. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000418.
200. Verstraeten LM, Haan NJ, Verbeet E, et al. Handgrip strength rather than chair stand test should be used to diagnose sarcopenia in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac242. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac242.
201. Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002.
202. Ibrahim K, May CR, Patel HP, et al. Implementation of grip strength measurement in medicine for older people wards as part of routine admission assessment: identifying facilitators and barriers using a theory-led intervention. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18:1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0768-5.
203. Pedersen BK, Saltin B. Exercise as medicine – evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. Scandinavian Med Sci Sports . 2015;25:1–72. doi: 10.1111/sms.12581.
204. Mead G, Todhunter-Brown A, Abaraogu U, et al. Multiple Long-Term Conditions, Co-Long-Term Conditions and Polyvascular Disease: Considerations for Evidence Synthesis and Meta-Analyses. Cochrane Evid Synth Methods . 2025;3:e70027. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70027.