ArticlePeerJ2018
Unilateral application of an external pneumatic compression therapy improves skin blood flow and vascular reactivity bilaterally.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute effect of lower-limb peristaltic pulse external pneumatic compression on segmental arterial stiffness in healthy young adults.Physiological reports · 2025Trial
- Review
- Assessment of ipsilateral and contralateral perfusion after contrast compression therapy of upper limb muscles in MMA athletes - a cross-over study.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Effects of an external pneumatic compression device vs static compression garment on peripheral circulation and markers of sports performance and recovery.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Article
- Local and Contralateral Effects after the Application of Neuromuscular Electrostimulation in Lower Limbs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to determine the effects of unilateral lower-limb external pneumatic compression (EPC) on bilateral lower-limb vascular reactivity and skin blood flow.
methodsThirty-two participants completed this two-aim study. In AIM1 (
resultsComparative data herein are presented as mean ± 95% confidence interval. AIM1: No significant effects on total reactive hyperemia blood flow were observed for the treated (i.e., compressed) or untreated (i.e., non-compressed) leg. A significant effect of time, but no time*leg interaction, was observed for relative FMD indicating higher reactivity bilaterally with unilateral EPC treatment (FMD: +0.41 ± 0.09% across both legs; DISCUSSION: Unilateral EPC may be an effective intervention for increasing skin blood flow and/or peripheral conduit vascular reactivity in the contralateral limb. While EPC was effective in increasing whole-leg MST bilaterally, there appeared to be a more robust response in the thigh compared to the lower-leg. Thus, proximity along the leg may be an important consideration in prospective treatment strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.