↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Grip strength measurement for frailty assessment in patients with vascular disease and associations with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Vascular Surgery, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 2,637)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
47 news outlets
twitter
38 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Grip strength measurement for frailty assessment in patients with vascular disease and associations with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia
Published in
Journal of Vascular Surgery, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.078
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas E. Reeve, Rebecca Ur, Timothy E. Craven, James H. Kaan, Matthew P. Goldman, Matthew S. Edwards, Justin B. Hurie, Gabriela Velazquez-Ramirez, Matthew A. Corriere

Abstract

Frailty is associated with adverse events, length of stay, and nonhome discharge after vascular surgery. Frailty measures based on walking-based tests may be impractical or invalid for patients with walking impairment from symptoms or sequelae of vascular disease. We hypothesized that grip strength is associated with frailty, comorbidity, and cardiac risk among patients with vascular disease. Dominant hand grip strength was measured during ambulatory clinic visits among patients with vascular disease (abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA], carotid stenosis, and peripheral artery disease [PAD]). Frailty prevalence was defined on the basis of the 20th percentile of community-dwelling population estimates adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index. Associations between grip strength, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), and sarcopenia (based on total psoas area for patients with cross-sectional abdominal imaging) were evaluated using linear and logistic regression. Grip strength was measured in 311 participants; all had sufficient data for CCI calculation, 217 (69.8%) had sufficient data for RCRI, and 88 (28.3%) had cross-sectional imaging permitting psoas measurement. Eighty-six participants (27.7%) were categorized as frail on the basis of grip strength. Frailty was associated with CCI (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.57; P = .0002) in the multivariable model. Frail participants also had a higher average number of RCRI components vs nonfrail patients (mean ± standard deviation, 1.8 ± 0.8 for frail vs 1.5 ± 0.7 for nonfrail; P = .018); frailty was also associated with RCRI in the adjusted multivariable model (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.64; P = .008). Total psoas area was lower among patients categorized as frail vs nonfrail on the basis of grip strength (21.0 ± 6.6 vs 25.4 ± 7.4; P = .010). Each 10 cm2 increase in psoas area was associated with a 5.7 kg increase in grip strength in a multivariable model adjusting for age and gender (P < .0001). Adjusted least squares mean psoas diameter estimates were 25.5 ± 1.1 cm2 for participants with AAA, 26.7 ± 2.0 cm2 for participants with carotid stenosis, and 22.7 ± 0.8 cm2 for participants with PAD (P = .053 for PAD vs AAA; P = .057 for PAD vs carotid stenosis; and P = .564 for AAA vs carotid stenosis). Grip strength is useful for identifying frailty among patients with vascular disease. Frail status based on grip strength is associated with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia in this population. These findings suggest that grip strength may have utility as a simple and inexpensive risk screening tool that is easily implemented in ambulatory clinics, avoids the need for imaging, and overcomes possible limitations of walking-based measures. Lower mean psoas diameters among patients with PAD vs other diagnoses may warrant consideration of specific approaches to morphomic analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 29%
Researcher 2 29%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 401. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,089
of 10,691,358 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Vascular Surgery
#8
of 2,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,163
of 283,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Vascular Surgery
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,691,358 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.