ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Effect of blood flow restriction on muscle strength and stability following foot and ankle injury: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor musculoskeletal recovery following foot and ankle injury can result in chronic instability and persistent muscle weakness. Preliminary evidence has shown that blood flow restriction (BFR) rehabilitation can increase muscle strength and stability, helping to restore physical function and prevent repeated injury.
aimTo determine whether BFR is more effective than traditional rehabilitation in improving muscle strength, size, and stability after foot and ankle injury.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Included studies compared the effectiveness of BFR rehabilitation to traditional foot and ankle rehabilitation exercises. Eligible patients were those with a history of foot or ankle injury. Muscle strength, size, and dynamic balance were assessed by comparing improvements in peak torque, cross-sectional area, and percent muscle activation. Methodological quality assessments were performed using the PEDro scale and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).
resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies were of good to excellent quality according to the PEDro scale, and 5 studies were of moderate quality as per the MINORS criteria. Two studies compared the effect of BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation on muscle strength; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12),
conclusionBFR rehabilitation is more effective than non-BFR rehabilitation at improving muscle strength and activation following foot and ankle injury. Additional studies are needed to develop a standardized BFR training protocol.
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.