ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Development and usability testing of a preliminary web-based application for the clinical implementation of blood flow restriction: a mixed methods pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) has gained popularity for use with a wide range of healthy and clinical populations. However, several factors including medical screening, selection of equipment, and determination of cuff pressure still pose barriers for implementation. Accordingly, this study aimed to develop and test a web-based application to guide practitioners in using BFR safely and effectively. Methods: First, we developed an application to assist with medical screening, selection of appropriate equipment, and determination of cuff pressures. Subsequently, we conducted preliminary usability testing of the application using a mixed methods approach. Licensed physical therapists (n = 5) with no prior experience with BFR used the application to implement BFR exercise in hypothetical patient scenarios. Afterward, perceived usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and semi-structured interviews analyzed through thematic analysis. Results: All task scenarios were successfully completed in an average time of 2.3 ± 1.2 min. A total of 11 errors occurred, including minor navigation issues (4), data input problems (2), and difficulty interpreting recommendations (5). The composite SUS score was 94 ± 5, ranking highly compared to industry standards. Interviews revealed that the application was efficient, boosted confidence in using BFR, and increased the perceived likelihood of incorporating BFR into clinical practice. Discussion: These findings suggest that the web-based application has potential to serve as a valuable tool for overcoming barriers to BFR use, enhancing accessibility, and improving the safety and effectiveness of BFR implementation in clinical settings.
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.