4.5 Article

Low Grip Strength and Increased Mortality Hazard among Middle-Aged and Older Chinese Adults with Chronic Diseases

期刊

BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 213-221

出版社

CHINESE CENTER DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION
DOI: 10.3967/bes2023.013

关键词

Grip strength; Death; Chronic disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the association between lower grip strength and mortality hazard. The findings suggest that elevated grip strength is correlated with lower mortality up to a certain threshold. The study also identifies sex-specific grip strength thresholds for middle-aged and older Chinese adults, below which grip strength is inversely associated with mortality hazard.
Objective This study aims to evaluate the association between lower grip strength and mortality hazard. Methods We selected 10,280 adults aged 45 to 96 years old from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study and used multivariate Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of grip strength with mortality hazard. In addition, we explored the possibility of a nonlinear relationship using a 4-knot restricted spline regression. Results We found that elevated grip strength was associated with lower mortality up to a certain threshold. The baseline quartile values of grip strength were 30, 37, and 44 kg for males and 25, 30, and 35 kg for females. After adjusting for confounders, with category 1 as the reference group, the adjusted HRs were 0.58 (0.42-0.79) in males and 0.70 (0.48-0.99) in females (category 4). We also found a linear association between grip strength values and all-cause death risk (males, P = 0.274; females, P = 0.883) using restricted spline regression. For males with a grip strength < 37 kg and females with a grip strength < 30 kg, grip strength and death were negatively associated. Conclusion Grip strength below a sex-specific threshold is inversely associated with mortality hazard among middle-aged and older Chinese adults with chronic diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据