Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178530›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2022

Acute and Chronic Effects of Blood Flow Restricted High-Intensity Interval Training: A Systematic Review.

Man Tong Chua, Alexiaa Sim, Stephen Francis Burns

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07079280 (Comparison of Acute Micro- and Macrovascular Responses to Aerobic Exercise With and Without Blood Flow Restriction in Young and Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT07079280 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Acute Micro- and Macrovascular Responses to Aerobic Exercise With and Without Blood Flow Restriction in Young and Older Adults: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorEgas Moniz - Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, CRLRan2025 to 2026Enrolled52ConditionsAgeing, Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) Training EffectsArmsLow Intensity Aerobic Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction (LIAE+BFR), High Intensity Interval Exercise (HIIE)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Man Tong ChuaPhysical Education and Sports Science, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637636, Singapore.
Alexiaa SimPhysical Education and Sports Science, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637636, Singapore.
Stephen Francis BurnsPhysical Education and Sports Science, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637636, Singapore. stephen.burns@nie.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of blood flow restriction (BFR) during exercise is becoming an increasingly useful adjunct method in both athletic and rehabilitative settings. Advantages in pairing BFR with training can be observed in two scenarios: (1) training at lower absolute intensities (e.g. walking) elicits adaptations akin to high-intensity sessions (e.g. running intervals); (2) when performing exercise at moderate to high intensities, higher physiological stimulus may be attained, leading to larger improvements in aerobic, anaerobic, and muscular parameters. The former has been well documented in recent systematic reviews, but consensus on BFR (concomitant or post-exercise) combined with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols is not well established. Therefore, this systematic review evaluates the acute and chronic effects of BFR + HIIT.

methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. A systematic search on 1 February 2022, was conducted on four key databases: ScienceDirect, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Quality of each individual study was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Extraction of data from included studies was conducted using an adapted version of the 'Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome' (PICO) framework.

resultsA total of 208 articles were identified, 18 of which met inclusion criteria. Of the 18 BFR + HIIT studies (244 subjects), 1 reported both acute and chronic effects, 5 examined acute responses and 12 investigated chronic effects. Acutely, BFR challenges the metabolic processes (vascular and oxygenation responses) during high-intensity repeated sprint exercise-which accelerates central and peripheral neuromuscular fatigue mechanisms resulting in performance impairments. Analysis of the literature exploring the chronic effects of BFR + HIIT suggests that BFR does provide an additive physiological training stimulus to HIIT protocols, especially for measured aerobic, muscular, and, to some extent, anaerobic parameters.

conclusionPresently, it appears that the addition of BFR into HIIT enhances physiological improvements in aerobic, muscular, and, to some extent, anaerobic performance. However due to large variability in permutations of BFR + HIIT methodologies, it is necessary for future research to explore and recommend standardised BFR guidelines for each HIIT exercise type.

Indexed as

Aerobic exerciseBlood flow restrictionEnduranceInterval trainingOcclusionSprint

Identifiers

PMID36178530
PMCPMC9525532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.