Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 8, pp 2536–2541 | Cite as

What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Grip Strength?

  • Jae Kwang KimEmail author
  • Min Gyue Park
  • Sung Joon Shin
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Grip strength reflects functional status of the upper extremity and has been used in many of the clinical studies regarding upper extremity disease or fracture. However, the smallest difference in grip strength that a patient would notice as an improvement resulting from treatment (defined as the minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), to our knowledge has not been determined.

Questions/purposes

We asked (1) how 1-year postsurgery grip strength compares with preinjury values; (2) if grip strength correlated with patient’s ratings; (3) what the MCID is in the grip strength; and (4) if these values are equivalent to or greater than what can be explained by measurement errors in patients treated for distal radius fracture.

Methods

Fifty patients treated by volar locking plate fixation for a distal radius fracture constituted the study cohort. Grip strengths were measured 1 year after surgery on the injured and uninjured sides using a dynamometer. Grip strengths before injury were estimated using the grip strengths of the uninjured side with consideration of hand dominance. Patients were asked to rate their subjective level of grip strength weakness at 1 year postoperatively. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to determine MCIDs. Minimal detectable change in grip strength, which is a statistical estimate of the smallest change between two measurement points expected by measurement error or chance alone, also was determined using the formula 1.65 × √2 × standard error of measurement.

Results

One year after surgery, grip strength (23 kg; 95% CI, 20–27) was less compared with calculated preinjury values (28 kg; 95% CI, 25–31; p < 0.001). Patients’ rating of grip strength and measured grip strength changes correlated well (p = 0.56). MCIDs were 6.5 kg for grip strength and 19.5% for percentage grip strength. The MCID was not less than the minimum detectable change for grip strength (also 6.5 kg).

Conclusions

The MCID of the grip strength was a decrease of 6.5 kg (19.5%). We believe the MCID of grip strength is useful for evaluating effectiveness of new treatments and for determining appropriate sample size in clinical trials of distal radius fractures.

Level of Evidence

Level III diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve Grip Strength Distal Radius Fracture Minimum Clinically Important Difference Minimal Detectable Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Kyoung Ae Gong MD, PhD, of the Department of Preventive Medicine for help and advice regarding the statistical analysis and Jung Mee No BD, for performing the physical examinations and collecting the patients’ questionnaires.

References

  1. 1.
    Arora R, Lutz M, Deml C, Krappinger D, Haug L, Gabl M. A prospective randomized trial comparing nonoperative treatment with volar locking plate fixation for displaced and unstable distal radial fractures in patients sixty-five years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:2146–2153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balogun JA, Akomolafe CT, Amusa LO. Grip strength: effects of testing posture and elbow position. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;72:280–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohannon RW, Schaubert KL. Test-retest reliability of grip-strength measures obtained over a 12-week interval from community-dwelling elders. J Hand Ther. 2005;18:426–427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crosby CA, Wehbe MA, Mawr B. Hand strength: normative values. J Hand Surg Am. 1994;19:665–670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, Carr A. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1257–1267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:918–931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katz JN, Fossel KK, Simmons BP, Swartz RA, Fossel AH, Koris MJ. Symptoms, functional status, and neuromuscular impairment following carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20:549–555.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim JK, Jeon SH. Minimal clinically important differences in the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013;38:75–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim JK, Park ES. Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1406–1411.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klum M, Wolf MB, Hahn P, Leclere FM, Bruckner T, Unglaub F. Normative data on wrist function. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37:2050–2060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leopold SS. Editor’s spotlight/take 5: Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1403–1405.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, Katz JN. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1585–1592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacDermid JC. Development of a scale for patient rating of wrist pain and disability. J Hand Ther. 1996;9:178–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petersen P, Petrick M, Connor H, Conklin D. Grip strength and hand dominance: challenging the 10% rule. Am J Occup Ther. 1989;43:444–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheer JH, Adolfsson LE. Radioulnar laxity and clinical outcome do not correlate after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2011;36:503–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76:1109–1123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:796–803.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jae Kwang Kim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Min Gyue Park
    • 3
  • Sung Joon Shin
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery School of MedicineEwha Womans UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Ewha Womans University Medical CenterSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryEwha Womans University Medical CenterSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations