Skip to main content

Table 4 Relationship between handgrip strength and BMD in boys (n = 171)

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 PLM and PFM

β

CI (95%)

P-value

β

CI (95%)

P-value

β

CI (95%)

P-value

Boys

 BMD Arms (g/cm2)

0.007

0.006; 0.008

≤0.001*

0.005

0.003; 0.006

≤0.001*

0.006

0.004; 0.007

≤0.001*

 BMD Legs (g/cm2)

0.019

0.017; 0.021

≤0.001*

0.009

0.006; 0.013

≤0.001*

0.017

0.014; 0.020

≤0.001*

 BMD Pelvis (g/cm2)

0.016

0.014; 0.019

≤0.001*

0.010

0.006; 0.013

≤0.001*

0.014

0.011; 0.017

≤0.001*

 BMD Trunk (g/cm2)

0.010

0.009; 0.012

≤0.001*

0.007

0.005; 0.010

≤0.001*

0.009

0.007; 0.010

≤0.001*

 BMD Spine (g/cm2)

0.010

0.008; 0.012

≤0.001*

0.009

0.006; 0.013

≤0.001*

0.008

0.006; 0.010

≤0.001*

 BMD Total (g/cm2)

0.010

0.008; 0.011

≤0.001*

0.006

0.003; 0.008

≤0.001*

0.007

0.005; 0.010

≤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. Variance Inflation Factor values for collinearity statistics: Handgrip Strength = 2.577; Age = 6.290; PHV = 3.882; PLST = 2.505; PFM = 2.697. * p < 0.05
Back to article page

BMC Pediatrics

ISSN: 1471-2431

Contact us