SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2024
Effects of upper extremity blood flow restriction training on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of blood flow restriction combined with high-load training on muscle strength and sports performance in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Partial ischemia as molecular medicine: molecular mechanisms and clinical horizons of blood flow restriction training.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- The impact of blood flow restriction therapy on orthopaedic conditions of the upper extremity: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Annals of joint · 2026Review
- Enhancing shoulder strength through blood flow restriction training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Effects of blood flow restriction interval training on aerobic, anaerobic capacity, and muscle strength in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFRT) has been shown to improve muscle strength and hypertrophic function. The effect of LL-BFRT on lower extremity muscle improvement has been widely discussed. However, no studies have discussed the effect of this training method on the upper extremity muscles until now. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on the use of LL-BFRT in the upper extremity muscles. Methods: The relevant literature was searched in four major databases including Pubmed, Web of science, the Cochrane Library and Embase from 10 June 2024. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and quality in included studies. Results: The meta-analysis included a total of 11 articles with 220 participants. LL-BFRT and high load resistance training (HLRT) produced similar effects in improving upper extremity muscle strength (low certainty evidence, SMD: -0.35; 95%CI: -0.73 to 0.03; Conclusion: In general, LL-BFRT can be used as an alternative training method for HLRT to improve upper extremity muscle strength and hypertrophy. Our study shows that the effect of LL-BFRT on upper extremity muscle is limited by age and region. It is necessary to formulate reasonable exercise programs according to the characteristics of different demographic groups. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024555514.
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.