SynthesisJournal of athletic training2022
Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise to Failure and Nonfailure and Myoelectric Activity: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of athletic training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of lower limb blood flow restriction training on post-activation potentiation enhancement and fatigue: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): A Checklist Developed Using an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Sports medicine - open · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Blood Flow Restriction in Athletic Populations-Part 2: Applications in Resistance Training Across the Loading Spectrum.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- [Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in patients before and after total knee arthroplasty].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Muscle activity and hypoalgesia in blood flow restricted versus unrestricted effort-matched resistance exercise in healthy adults.Physiological reports · 2024Article
- Distinct adaptations of muscle endurance but not strength or hypertrophy to low-load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction.Experimental physiology · 2024Article
- Oh, My Quad: A Clinical Commentary And Evidence-Based Framework for the Rehabilitation of Quadriceps Size and Strength after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024Article
- Myoelectric Activity and Fatigue in Low-Load Resistance Exercise With Different Pressure of Blood Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the short- and long-term effects of low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high- (HL-RT) load resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity and investigate the differences between failure (exercise performed to volitional failure) and nonfailure (exercise not performed to volitional failure) protocols. DATA SOURCES: We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: We screened the titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study and extracted the data. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure and nonfailure protocols. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during nonfailure protocols (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR during failure (SMD = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.01, -0.21) and nonfailure (SMD = -1.13; 95% CI = -1.94, -0.33) protocols. Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.39, 1.79).
conclusionsGreater short-term muscle excitability levels were observed in LL-BFR than in LL-RT during nonfailure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability was present during HL-RT than LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increased muscle excitability in the long term compared with LL-RT.
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.