Scholarlink

<p>It is unknown whether non-dominant handgrip strength is more strongly associated with health-related quality of life than dominant handgrip strength. This analytical cross-sectional study aimed to determine the comparative association of dominant versus non-dominant handgrip strength with health-related quality of life. Bilateral handgrip strength assessments were performed, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 questionnaire. A total of 229 participants were evaluated (49.6 ± 5.2&#xa0;years; 29.9 ± 4.73&#xa0;kg/m2; 52.8% female; 96.1% right-handed). Dominant handgrip strength (33.00 ± 10.66&#xa0;kg) was significantly stronger than non-dominant handgrip strength (31.30 ± 9.74&#xa0;kg; p &lt; 0.001). Notably, in the total population, 32.3% (n = 74; 33.0 ± 10.1&#xa0;kg) obtained their maximum grip strength in the non-dominant hand, whereas 67.7% (n = 155; 34.2 ± 10.9&#xa0;kg) obtained it in the dominant hand. Both dominant (r<sub>ω</sub> = 0.31; p &lt; 0.001) and non-dominant (r<sub>ω</sub> = 0.31; p &lt; 0.001) handgrip strength showed significant and near-identical positive correlations with health-related quality of life. Linear regression models were statistically significant and showed that non-dominant (β = 0.32; p &lt; 0.001) and dominant handgrip strength (β = 0.31; p &lt; 0.001) explained 9.8% and 10.2% of the variance in health-related quality of life, respectively. In conclusion, non-dominant handgrip strength was significantly associated with health-related quality of life, with a magnitude almost identical to that of dominant handgrip strength. These findings challenge the common clinical and investigative practice of assessing only the dominant hand; given that nearly one-third (32.3%) of participants were strongest in their non-dominant hand, unilateral assessment protocols risk systematically underestimating true maximum strength and misclassifying individuals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

One third of people exert greater handgrip strength with their non-dominant hand

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月6日

查看全文
  • Iván Cuyul-Vásquez,
  • Laura Castillo-Vejar,
  • Nicolás Garrido-Muñoz,
  • Francisco Soto-Rodríguez,
  • Claudio Bascour-Sandoval,
  • Claudio Muñoz-Poblete,
  • Diego Ribeiro de Souza,
  • Sandro Massao Hirabara,
  • Rui Curi,
  • Gabriel Nasri Marzuca-Nassr

摘要

It is unknown whether non-dominant handgrip strength is more strongly associated with health-related quality of life than dominant handgrip strength. This analytical cross-sectional study aimed to determine the comparative association of dominant versus non-dominant handgrip strength with health-related quality of life. Bilateral handgrip strength assessments were performed, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 questionnaire. A total of 229 participants were evaluated (49.6 ± 5.2 years; 29.9 ± 4.73 kg/m2; 52.8% female; 96.1% right-handed). Dominant handgrip strength (33.00 ± 10.66 kg) was significantly stronger than non-dominant handgrip strength (31.30 ± 9.74 kg; p < 0.001). Notably, in the total population, 32.3% (n = 74; 33.0 ± 10.1 kg) obtained their maximum grip strength in the non-dominant hand, whereas 67.7% (n = 155; 34.2 ± 10.9 kg) obtained it in the dominant hand. Both dominant (rω = 0.31; p < 0.001) and non-dominant (rω = 0.31; p < 0.001) handgrip strength showed significant and near-identical positive correlations with health-related quality of life. Linear regression models were statistically significant and showed that non-dominant (β = 0.32; p < 0.001) and dominant handgrip strength (β = 0.31; p < 0.001) explained 9.8% and 10.2% of the variance in health-related quality of life, respectively. In conclusion, non-dominant handgrip strength was significantly associated with health-related quality of life, with a magnitude almost identical to that of dominant handgrip strength. These findings challenge the common clinical and investigative practice of assessing only the dominant hand; given that nearly one-third (32.3%) of participants were strongest in their non-dominant hand, unilateral assessment protocols risk systematically underestimating true maximum strength and misclassifying individuals.