Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29043659›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Manoel E Lixandrão, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Ricardo Berton, Felipe C Vechin, Miguel S Conceição, Felipe Damas, Cleiton A Libardi, Hamilton Roschel

5 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 255 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
255citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04606654 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Handgrip Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction in Relation to Gender Among Healthy Young Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled56ConditionsSports Physical TherapyArmsHandgrip strength training without Blood flow restriction, Handgrip strength training with Blood flow restriction
NCT05037942 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Influence of Restriction Pressure on Indices of Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage Following Low-Load Blood Flow-Restricted Resistance Exercise: A Randomised Controlled Trial in Healthy Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SurreyRan2021 to 2022Enrolled34ConditionsMuscle Damage, Muscle Soreness, Muscle StrengthArmsBlood flow restriction at 40% limb occlusion pressure, Blood flow restriction at 80% limb occlusion pressure
NCT05437770 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Low-intensity Blood-flow Restricted Exercise Compared to Standard Rehabilitation in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis - a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBispebjerg HospitalRan2022 to 2025Enrolled96ConditionsOsteoarthritis, KneeArmsBFR (Blood-Flow Restricted exercise), Standard rehabilitation
NCT05451641 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Vascular Function: Wide-Rigid Cuffs vs. Narrow-Elastic Bands

TypeinterventionalSponsorHirofumi TanakaRan2022 to 2024Enrolled26ConditionsEndothelial FunctionArmsBlood flow restriction resistance training
NCT05573321 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Acute Systemic Irisin, Myostatin and Decorin Levels

TypeinterventionalSponsorEge UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled22ConditionsMuscle HypotrophyArmsBFR-RE, HL-RE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

255 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

195 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Manoel E LixandrãoSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Carlos UgrinowitschSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Ricardo BertonSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Felipe C VechinSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Miguel S ConceiçãoSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Felipe DamasSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Cleiton A LibardiLaboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sao Carlos, Brazil.
Hamilton RoschelSchool of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. hars@usp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle strength and mass. However, it remains unclear if the magnitude of these adaptations is similar to conventional high-load resistance training (> 65% 1RM; HL-RT).

objectiveTo compare the effects of HL- versus BFR-RT on muscle adaptations using a systematic review and meta-analysis procedure.

methodsStudies were identified via electronic databases based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (b) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle hypertrophy; (c) comparison of HL-RT vs. BFR-RT; (d) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (e) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported from absolute values or allow estimation from graphs. If this last criterion was not met, data were directly requested from the authors.

resultsThe main results showed higher increases in muscle strength for HL- as compared with BFR-RT, even when considering test specificity, absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Regarding the hypertrophic response, results revealed similar effects between HL- and BFR-RT, regardless of the absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription.

conclusionsBased on the present data, maximum muscle strength may be optimized by specific training methods (i.e., HL-RT) while both HL- and BFR-RT seem equally effective in increasing muscle mass. Importantly, BFR-RT is a valid and effective approach for increasing muscle strength in a wide spectrum of ages and physical capacity, although it may seem particularly of interest for those individuals with physical limitations to engage in HL-RT.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalMuscle StrengthHumansMuscle, SkeletalRegional Blood FlowResistance TrainingWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID29043659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.