Skip to main content

Table 1 Characterization of the study sample and data acquisition for all four evaluations

From: Alternative instrument for the evaluation of handgrip strength in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Variables analyzed

Evaluation 1 (n = 33)

Evaluation 2 (n = 24)

Evaluation 3 (n = 15)

Evaluation 4 (n = 8)

Age (Years)

10.0 (0.33)

10.8 (0.34)

11.3 (0.35)

12.2 (0.37)

Weight (Kg)

37.2 (2.4)a,b,c

41.9 (2.51)

45.6 (2.77)

48.9 (4.7)

Height (m)

1.35 (0.03)

1.41 (0.03)

1.42 (0.04)

1.42 (0.07)

BMI (Kg/m2)

19.7 (1.2)

20.8 (1.2)

22.8 (1.6)

23.8 (3.6)

MFM D1 (%)

41.5 (6.2)b,c

34.8 (6.4)

26.8 (6.8)

25.0 (7.7)

MFM D2 (%)

87.9 (2.9)c

86.7 (3.0)e

86.0 (3.2)f

81.1 (3.4)

MFM D3 (%)

87.4 (2.0)

88.4 (2.2)e

87.6 (2.4)

82.4 (2.9)

MFM Total (%)

67.3 (3.6)b,c

65.7 (3.7)e

62.3 (3.9)

58.7 (4.2)

Dynamometer (kgf)

[95%CI]

5.2 (0.72)a,b,c

[3.7 – 6.7]

3.8 (0.73)d

[2.4 – 5.3]

3.1 (0.8)

[1.6 – 4.6]

3.0 (0.9)

[1.2 – 4.8]

Modified-sphygmo (psi)

[95%CI]

3.4 (0.16)

[3.0 – 3.7]

3.3 (0.16)

[3.0 – 3.6]

3.4 (0.17)

[3.0 – 3.7]

3.6 (0.19)

[3.2 – 4.0]

  1. Mean values and standard errors (between brackets)
  2. n number of patients, BMI body mass index, MFM measure of motor function, D1 dimension 1 of MFM, D2 dimension 2 of MFM, D3 dimension 3 of MFM, 95%CI (95% confidence interval). Differences of least squares means (mixed effect models), p < 0.05 = a: Evaluation (Ev) 1 vs Ev2, b: Ev1 vs Ev3, c: Ev1 vs Ev4, d: Ev2 vs Ev3, e: Ev2 vs Ev4, and f: Ev3 vs Ev4