Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34769957›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca, Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur, Pablo Monteagudo, Cristina Blasco-Lafarga, Iván Chulvi-Medrano

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Darío Rodrigo-MallorcaUIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Andrés Felipe Loaiza-BetancurDepartment of Physical Education and Sports, Institute of Physical Education, University of Antioquia, Medellín 050010, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0001-8258-8175
Pablo MonteagudoUIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4617-8333
Cristina Blasco-LafargaUIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8798-306X
Iván Chulvi-MedranoUIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6612-1759

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11],

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAgedHemodynamicsHumansMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthRegional Blood Flowhypertrophykatsulow-intensity trainingocclusive exercisesarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID34769957
PMCPMC8583588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.