Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2024
Effect of blood flow restriction and electrical muscle stimulation on human glycemic response to a glucose challenge.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "CLINICAL-BFR": An exploratory blood flow restriction protocol focusing on clinical application.Sports medicine and health science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether reduced tissue oxygen availability through blood flow restriction (BFR) alone, or in combination with electrically induced muscle contractions, can improve glucose clearance after an acute glucose challenge.
methodsIn a randomized crossover design, 21 young participants (females: 12) were allocated to perform 1) electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), 2) BFR, 3) EMS + BFR or 4) no treatment (control). Participants completed each condition immediately preceding a 2 h oral glucose tolerance test (100 g). Primary analyses were performed on the glucose area under the curve (AUC) at time points 0-30, 30-120, and 0-120 min. Secondary analyses were performed on glycemic responses based on biological sex and estimated muscle phenotype.
resultsCompared to the control (322±25 mM∙min), the 0-30 min AUC was reduced following EMS (293±22 mM∙min, p = 0.0004), and EMS + BFR (298±36 mM∙min., p = 0.006), whereas BFR in isolation did not differ (306±30 mM∙min, p = 0.1). The 30-120 and 0-120 min glucose AUCs were similar across conditions. Based on effect size from the control conditions, our secondary analysis suggests different 0-30 min glycemic responses after EMS + BFR between females (d
conclusionReducing tissue oxygen availability with BFR did not augment the effects of EMS in the overall group; however, we provide preliminary data to suggest possible sex and/or muscle phenotypic responses in glycemic regulation with these modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38441689What 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.