Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39162881›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2025

Progression and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction resistance training among people with multiple sclerosis.

Ethan C Hill, Jeffrey T Schmidt, Kyle R Reedy, Sean M Lubiak, Chris E Proppe, Paola M Rivera, David H Gonzalez-Rojas, John E Lawson, Anuj J Prajapati, Niriham M Shah and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Ethan C HillSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA. ethan.hill@ucf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5573-3370
Jeffrey T SchmidtAdventHealth Sports Med and Rehab, 265 E Rollins St. Suite 9100, Orlando, FL, 32804, USA.
Kyle R ReedyAdventHealth Sports Med and Rehab, 265 E Rollins St. Suite 9100, Orlando, FL, 32804, USA.
Sean M LubiakSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Chris E ProppeSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Paola M RiveraSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
David H Gonzalez-RojasSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
John E LawsonSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Anuj J PrajapatiSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Niriham M ShahSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Nihar N PatelSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Andrew M GuirgisSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Abner-Alexander SilverioSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Mason A HowardSchool of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Hwan ChoiCollege of Engineering, Mechanical and Aerospace, University of Central Florida, 4328 Scorpius St, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA.
Joshua L KellerCollege of Education and Professional Studies, University of South Alabama, 75 S University Blvd #3600, Mobile, AL, 36618, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeResistance exercise can attenuate muscular impairments associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), and blood flow restriction (BFR) may provide a viable alternative to prescribing heavy training loads. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the progression of upper and lower body low-load (30% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) resistance training (RT) with BFR applied intermittently during the exercise intervals (RT + BFR) versus volume-matched heavy-load (65% of 1RM) RT.

methodsMen and women with MS (n = 16) were randomly assigned to low-load RT + BFR (applied intermittently) or heavy-load RT and completed 12 weeks (2 × /week) of RT that consisted of bilateral chest press, seated row, shoulder press, leg press, leg extension, and leg curl exercises. Exercise load, tonnage, and rating of perceived exertion were assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks.

resultsTraining load increased to a greater extent and sometimes earlier for RT + BFR (57.7-106.3%) than heavy-load RT (42.3-54.3%) during chest press, seated row, and leg curl exercises, while there were similar increases (63.5-101.1%) for shoulder press, leg extension, and leg press exercises. Exercise tonnage was greater across all exercises for RT + BFR than heavy-load RT, although tonnage only increased during the chest press (70.7-80.0%) and leg extension (89.1%) exercises. Perceptions of exertion (4.8-7.2 au) and compliance (97.9-99.0%) were similar for both interventions.

conclusionThe training-induced increases in load, high compliance, and moderate levels of exertion suggested that RT + BFR and heavy-load RT are viable interventions among people with MS. RT + BFR may be a preferred modality if heavy loads are not well tolerated and/or to promote early-phase training responses.

Indexed as

Blood Flow Restriction TherapyMultiple SclerosisMuscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegional Blood FlowExerciseKAATSUMuscleOcclusionPeriodizedStrength

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.