ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022
An Automated Technique for the Measurement of Limb Occlusion Pressure During Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Is Equivalent to Previous Gold Standard.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06565754 (Effect of Adding Blood Flow Restriction to Strengthening Exercise in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Effect of Adding Blood Flow Restriction to Strengthening Exercise in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute safety, cardiovascular, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to autoregulated and non-autoregulated blood flow restriction training during elbow rehabilitation in people with hemophilia.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Tourniquet cuff pressure during blood flow restriction exercise.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- No Differences in Exercise Performance, Perceptual Response, or Safety Were Observed Among 3 Blood Flow Restriction Devices.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of an automated pneumatic torniquet pump and its ability to automatically calculate the limb occlusion pressure (LOP), as compared with the manual Doppler ultrasound technique. Methods: Participants presenting to a Sports Medicine clinic were evaluated for study enrollment. Participants were fitted with a pneumatic tourniquet for the upper and lower extremity. LOP measurements were taken with a Doppler ultrasound or automated SmartCuffs PRO device in a randomized order. Results: Final analysis was performed on 96 limbs (48 upper extremities and 48 lower extremities). The study population had a mean age 37.1 ± 14.7 years old and a mean body mass index of 25.47 ± 3.80. The mean measured LOP pressure on the upper extremity with Doppler ultrasound was 174.0 ± 48.7 mm Hg with a range from 120 to 282 mm Hg, whereas the mean measured LOP by the automated pump was 184.0 ± 44.9 mm Hg with a range from 135 to 266 mm Hg. There was no statistically significant difference found between the Doppler LOP and the Smart Cuff upper extremity LOP ( Conclusions: No difference in the personalized LOP measurement was found when comparing an automated pump with the current gold standard of manual Doppler ultrasound. No patients companied of pain or discomfort during the LOP measurement. Level of Evidence: Level II, diagnostic: prospective cohort study.
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.