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

Table 4.

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

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*

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