ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Cardiovascular, perceptual, and performance responses to single- vs. multi-chambered blood flow restriction cuffs.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06276673 (The Influences of Single Chamber vs. Multi-chamber Blood Flow Restriction Cuffs on Post-exercise Arterial Stiffness, Perceptual Responses and Performance), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
The Influences of Single Chamber vs. Multi-chamber Blood Flow Restriction Cuffs on Post-exercise Arterial Stiffness, Perceptual Responses and Performance
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does Protocol Matter for Repetition Volume? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Volitional Failure Versus the Traditionally Used 75-Repetition Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training.Sports medicine - open · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of high-intensity and blood-flow-restricted resistance training on tendon adaptations in older men.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Trial
- Impact of blood flow restriction cuff design on upper body exercise: A randomized crossover trial in resistance-trained adults.Physiological reports · 2025Trial
- Autoregulation during blood flow restricted exercise offers no additional benefit on thigh muscle hypertrophy and strength adaptations in trained participants: a randomized within-subject 8-week trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Effects of autoregulated and non-autoregulated blood flow restriction on vastus medialis oblique responses during low-load resistance exercise.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Unpacking the blood flow restriction device features literature - set/interface pressure: recommendations and considerations for an evolving field.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Advances and limitations of semi-elastic pneumatic cuffs in blood flow restriction training: a narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
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
Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the blood flow restriction bladder type (single- [SC-BFR] vs. multi-chambered [MC-BFR]) on exercise performance, cardiovascular responses, and perceptual experiences with exercise sessions incorporating multiple sets to volitional failure in a randomized, crossover experimental design. Methods: Twenty-seven healthy, physically active participants (age: 22.6 ± 5.7; weight: 74.3 ± 15.8 kg; height: 171.7 ± 7.7 cm; BMI: 25.0 ± 4.1 kg/m2; ∼93% reported regular resistance training within 6 months; 11 females) randomly performed exercise to failure (4× sets to failure, 20% 1RM, 1 min rest between sets) in each of three conditions: SC-BFR (using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet Device inflated to 60% limb occlusion pressure), MC-BFR (using the B Strong Cuffs inflated to 300 mmHg according to manufacturer recommendations), and N-BFR (no BFR control). Results: SC-BFR blunted post-exercise increases in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity ( Conclusion: Bladder design of a BFR cuff has an impact on the acute responses to exercise if applied according to recommended application guidelines, as SC-BFR impacts performance to a greater degree and mitigates post-exercise arterial stiffness responses compared to MC-BFR and N-BFR while both BFR conditions display greater levels of discomfort compared to N-BFR. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT06276673.
Indexed as
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.