Skip to main content

Table 3 Relationship between handgrip strength and BMD in girls (n = 72)

From: Association between handgrip strength and bone mineral density of Brazilian children and adolescents stratified by sex: a cross-sectional study

Handgrip Strength

 

Unadjusted

Adjusted for age and PHV

Adjusted for PLST and PFM

β

CI (95%)

P-value

β

CI (95%)

P-value

β

CI (95%)

P-value

Girls

 BMD Arms (g/cm2)

0.008

0.007; 0.010

≤0.001*

0.005

0.003; 0.008

≤0.001*

0.006

0.004; 0.009

≤0.001*

 BMD Legs (g/cm2)

0.017

0.014; 0.020

≤0.001*

0.009

0.004; 0.014

≤0.001*

0.014

0.010; 0.019

≤0.001*

 BMD Pelvis (g/cm2)

0.020

0.017; 0.024

≤0.001*

0.015

0.010; 0.021

≤0.001*

0.019

0.014; 0.025

≤0.001*

 BMD Trunk (g/cm2)

0.013

0.011; 0.016

≤0.001*

0.010

0.006; 0.014

≤0.001*

0.013

0.010; 0.016

≤0.001*

 BMD Spine (g/cm2)

0.014

0.008; 0.020

≤0.001*

0.006

−0.003; 0.016

0.165

0.013

0.004; 0.022

0.008*

 BMD Total (g/cm2)

0.010

0.008; 0.013

≤0.001*

0.006

0.003; 0.009

≤0.001*

0.009

0.006; 0.012

≤0.001*

  1. PLST percentage lean soft tissue, PFM percentage fat mass, PHV years from peak height velocity, CI confidence interval, BMD bone mineral density, * = p-value< 0.05. Variance Inflation Factor values for collinearity statistics: Handgrip Strength = 2.428; Age = 7.517; PHV = 6.804; PLST = 5.982; PFM = 4.771. *p < 0.05