SynthesisPeerJ2025
Effect of blood-flow restricted
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a low-load multi-component training program with blood flow restriction versus the same program without blood flow restriction on muscle thickness and functional outcomes in physically inactive young adults: randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Trial
- Effects of calcium-regulating pulsed electromagnetic field combined with low-load blood flow restriction training on strength and performance adaptations in adolescent sprinters.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- The effect of blood flow restriction resistance exercise on arm muscle strength and isokinetic contraction parameters.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A practical complex training model for non-athletic populations: a randomized controlled trial on lower-limb power and sprint performance.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Muscle hypertrophy and strength improvements following blood flow restriction combined with resistance training in team-athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Exploring Blood Flow Restriction Exercise Protocols for Elderly Populations: A Scoping Review of Cuff Pressure, Frequency, and Duration for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Functional Abilities Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been shown to enhance muscle strength, power, and speed, but its effectiveness compared to traditional high-load resistance (HLR) training remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of LL-BFR and HLR training on muscle strength, power, and speed. Methodology: Studies were identified by searching the SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI databases up to May 13, 2024, using the following inclusion criteria: (a) healthy population; (b) comparison of LL-BFR Results: A total of 41 studies, involving 853 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the PEDro scores and GRADE assessment, the overall quality of the included studies was assessed as moderate. LL-BFR training showed a slightly smaller effect on maximal strength compared to HLR training (ES = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.31 to -0.06], Conclusions: LL-BFR training showed slightly less improvement in maximal strength compared to HLR training but demonstrated comparable effects on muscle power, jump performance, and speed in healthy individuals in healthy individuals. These findings suggest that LL-BFR may be a practical and effective alternative for individuals seeking performance improvements with lower training loads.
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.