Trial reportPloS one2021
Effect of an inverted seated position with upper arm blood flow restriction on measures of elbow flexors neuromuscular performance.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The immediate effects of blood flow restriction training on upper limb muscle strength and fatigue level: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of blood flow restriction training on post activation potentiation and upper limb muscle activation: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Review
- A Study to Identify the Optimum Forearm Floss Band Intensity in 29 Young Adults Performing Blood Flow Restriction Training.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of the investigation was to determine the concomitant effects of upper arm blood flow restriction (BFR) and inversion on elbow flexors neuromuscular responses.
methodsRandomly allocated, 13 volunteers performed four conditions in a within-subject design: rest (control, 1-min upright position without BFR), control (1-min upright with BFR), 1-min inverted (without BFR), and 1-min inverted with BFR. Evoked and voluntary contractile properties, before, during and after a 30-s maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) exercise intervention were examined as well as pain scale.
resultsInversion induced significant pre-exercise intervention decreases in elbow flexors MVC (21.1%, [Formula: see text] = 0.48, p = 0.02) and resting evoked twitch forces (29.4%, [Formula: see text] = 0.34, p = 0.03). The 30-s MVC induced significantly greater pre- to post-test decreases in potentiated twitch force ([Formula: see text] = 0.61, p = 0.0009) during inversion (↓75%) than upright (↓65.3%) conditions. Overall, BFR decreased MVC force 4.8% ([Formula: see text] = 0.37, p = 0.05). For upright position, BFR induced 21.0% reductions in M-wave amplitude ([Formula: see text] = 0.44, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences for electromyographic activity or voluntary activation as measured with the interpolated twitch technique. For all conditions, there was a significant increase in pain scale between the 40-60 s intervals and post-30-s MVC (upright<inversion, and without BFR<BFR).
conclusionThe concomitant application of inversion with elbow flexors BFR only amplified neuromuscular performance impairments to a small degree. Individuals who execute forceful contractions when inverted or with BFR should be cognizant that force output may be impaired.
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.