Normative data for handgrip strength in Iranian healthy children and adolescents aged 7–18 years: comparison with international norms

Abstract

Background Grip strength is an essential component of physical fitness. The objective of this study was to develop normative handgrip strength data for Iranian healthy boys and girls comparing their handgrip strength with international reference values. Methods Handgrip strength was measured in 2637 healthy children/adolescents (1391 boys and 1246 girls), aged 7–18 years, using a standard adjustable Jamar hand dynamometer (Model 5030 J1, Sammons Preston Rolyan, Bolingbrook, IL, USA). Body mass (kg) and stature (cm) were measured and body mass index was computed in kg/m2. The sample was stratified by gender, age, and hand preference. Results Handgrip strength increased with age and was considerably higher in boys than in girls for all age groups (p < 0.001). Grip strength had a parallel and linear growth for both genders until the age of about 11 years and showed a steeper upward slope in boys than in girls thereafter. The findings of the current investigation were significantly different from those of the previously published normative data, especially for boys over the age of 12 years and girls in the age range of 7–18 years (p < 0.001). This difference was mainly in such a way that the Iranians had lower handgrip strength. Conclusions The differences between present results and those of similar available in the literature in this field emphasize the significant role of using normative data specific to a particular population in research or clinical settings.

Normative values for hand grip and pinch strength for 6 to 18 year-olds in Saudi Arabia

“…The results showed an overall trend of increasing hand grip strength and pinch strength with age regardless of hand preference, which were consistent with previous findings [4,11,16,17,24,26]. This pattern of incresed strength might be explained by the physiological changes and development of arm and forearm muscle strength in both genders with age.…”

“…Moreover, the physical activity level, type of exercise practiced by boys, and lack of physical education classes in girls' schools might play a vital role in this gender difference. Compared to previously published studies, similar hand grip strength and [4,17,24].…”

“…This pattern of incresed strength might be explained by the physiological changes and development of arm and forearm muscle strength in both genders with age. In 2021, Rostamzadeh et al, reported hand grip strength norms for Iranian children/adolescents aged 7 to 18 years old [24]. The hand grip strength trend with age was not significantly different compared to our findings.…”

“…In a recent study published in Saudi Arabia on female colleage students aged 19 to 25 years found that hand grip strength increased with age and dominant hand showed greater strength compared to nondominant hand [23]. In a study with Iranian children and adolescnts, a hand grip strength increased lineay for boys and girls until the age of 11 years however boys shoed steeper increase compared to girls [24]. Pinch grip strength was greater in Indian male compared to female counterparts and it was associated with increase in age [25].…”

Reference Values of Absolute and Relative Handgrip Strength in Chilean Schoolchildren with Intellectual Disabilities

“…One of the most widely used measures to quantify MS in a safe, reliable and reproducible way is the handgrip strength (HGS) [ 4 ], considered an irreplaceable physical test of muscle function [ 5 ]. The HGS in people with ID who attend school is lower when compared to children with typical development [ 6 ], according to several existing investigations in the literature of HGS normative values for people without disabilities [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. These values present differences when establishing comparisons in HGS due to the lack of standardization of protocols and methodologies used for assessment, as well as the different technologies associated with the diversity of existing dynamometers, making it difficult to extrapolate results from one population to another [ 10 ].…”