ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Acute safety, cardiovascular, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to autoregulated and non-autoregulated blood flow restriction training during elbow rehabilitation in people with hemophilia.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Low-load resistance training with concurrent blood flow restriction (BFR) provides strength and hypertrophy benefits to healthy individuals and some clinical populations. This is the first study assessing safety and physiological responses of autoregulated (AUTO) and non-autoregulated (NAUTO) BFR protocols in people with hemophilia (PWH). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the acute safety, cardiovascular, neuromuscular and perceptual responses during AUTO and NAUTO BFR training in PWH. Methods: Eleven severe PWH under prophylaxis performed two sessions of elbow flexion and extension using elastic bands at 50% of the limb occlusion pressure (LOP) with different BFR settings (AUTO vs. NAUTO). Safety, cardiovascular parameters, rating of perceived exertion, elbow pain and pressure algometry were assessed at different timepoints. High-density surface electromyography activity and its spatial distribution were determined for biceps and triceps brachii. Results: Both BFR conditions were safe in PWH. AUTO provided a hypotensive and hypoalgesic acute response, albeit without between-group differences. Triceps brachii showed differences in spatial distribution, and greater activity with AUTO in the last 3 cycles of the first 3 sets. Although no major differences were found between both conditions in perceptual responses, AUTO condition increased VAS scores during both exercises. No adverse events were observed. Conclusions: BFR at 50%LOP during arm exercise with either AUTO or NAUTO appears to be equally safe in PWH, but AUTO showed trends for improved cardiovascular and neuromuscular responses. AUTO produced a hypotensive and hypoalgesic acute post-exercise response, albeit without between-group differences, a greater activation in triceps brachii, and higher values of pain. No serious adverse events were observed.
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.