Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 28;21:207. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02669-1

Table 3.

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

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*

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