Analytical cross-sectional study finds health-related quality of life linked to both handgrip strengths, suggesting non-dominant grip assessments are needed.
It is unknown whether non-dominant handgrip strength is more strongly associated with health-related quality of life than dominant handgrip strength. This analytical cross-sectional study aimed to determine the comparative association of dominant versus non-dominant handgrip strength with health-related quality of life. Bilateral handgrip strength assessments were performed, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 questionnaire. A total of 229 participants were evaluated (49.6 ± 5.2 years; 29.9 ± 4.73 kg/m2; 52.8% female; 96.1% right-handed). Dominant handgrip strength (33.00 ± 10.66 kg) was significantly stronger than non-dominant handgrip strength (31.30 ± 9.74 kg; p < 0.001). Notably, in the total population, 32.3% (n = 74; 33.0 ± 10.1 kg) obtained their maximum grip strength in the non-dominant hand, whereas 67.7% (n = 155; 34.2 ± 10.9 kg) obtained it in the dominant hand. Both dominant (rω = 0.31; p < 0.001) and non-dominant (rω = 0.31; p < 0.001) handgrip strength showed significant and near-identical positive correlations with health-related quality of life. Linear regression models were statistically significant and showed that non-dominant (β = 0.32; p < 0.001) and dominant handgrip strength (β = 0.31; p < 0.001) explained 9.8% and 10.2% of the variance in health-related quality of life, respectively. In conclusion, non-dominant handgrip strength was significantly associated with health-related quality of life, with a magnitude almost identical to that of dominant handgrip strength. These findings challenge the common clinical and investigative practice of assessing only the dominant hand; given that nearly one-third (32.3%) of participants were strongest in their non-dominant hand, unilateral assessment protocols risk systematically underestimating true maximum strength and misclassifying individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cuyul‐Vásquez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: