Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37880727›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2023

Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stian Langgård Jørgensen, Signe Kierkegaard-Brøchner, Marie Bagger Bohn, Mathias Høgsholt, Per Aagaard, Inger Mechlenburg

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Stian Langgård JørgensenDepartment of Occupational and Physical Therapy, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark. stiajo@rm.dk.
Signe Kierkegaard-BrøchnerH-HIP, Department of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Marie Bagger BohnH-HIP, Department of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Mathias HøgsholtDepartment of Occupational and Physical Therapy, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Per AagaardDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Inger MechlenburgDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Horsens · DKAarhus University · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effect of low-load blood flow restricted resistance training (BFR-RT) versus high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence to training in clinical musculoskeletal populations. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Medline, Embase, SportDiscus was searched on the 30 REVIEW

methodsThis study was conducted as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included if they (i) included patients, (ii) comprised of a BFR-RT intervention protocol and a group who performed HL-RT (≥ 70%1RM) for at least eight exercise sessions, and (iii) involved at least 1 exercise that targeted the lower limbs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model with an adjustment to the confidence interval.

resultsSeven RCTs comprising 303 participants (BFR-RT: n = 151; HL-RT: n = 152) were identified. HL-RT and BFR-RT showed similar gains in dynamic (1-10RM) knee extensor strength and leg press strength, quadriceps cross sectional area, sit-to-stand performance, and patient reported pain and function. There was a moderate effect favoring BFR-RT for increasing maximal isometric knee extensor strength. The grading of certainty in evidence was low-to-very low for all outcome variables.

conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis extends our current knowledge about BFR-RT and HL-RT as equally effective exercise methods for inducing gains in maximal muscle strength in healthy populations, by now also comprising patients suffering from various clinical musculoskeletal conditions. The certainty in the estimates was low-to-very low, prompting the inclusion of future higher-quality trials.

trial registrationPROSPERO ID (CRD42022337173). Registered June 18th 2022.

Indexed as

LocomotionMuscle strengthOcclusion trainingPainPatientsProgressive resistance training

Identifiers

PMID37880727
PMCPMC10601135
OpenAlexW4387933407

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.