ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2025
Blood Flow Restriction Use by U.S. Physical Therapists: A Survey on Settings, Equipment, and Adverse Effects.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenges in upright limb occlusion pressure determination with the Delfi PTS: pilot data from two independent cohorts.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with exercise has been shown to enhance muscle hypertrophy, strength, and aerobic capacity. While previous studies have evaluated the use of BFR among various practitioners, none have investigated its use exclusively among licensed U.S. physical therapists (PTs). A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to licensed U.S. PTs. Participants were required to use BFR currently in clinical practice. Survey items included respondents' demographics, practice setting, exercise mode, the type of BFR equipment used, and adverse events. A total of 134 licensed PTs from 20 states completed the survey. BFR was most commonly used in outpatient orthopedic settings, primarily in conjunction with resistance exercises. The Delfi unit was the most frequently used device (64%). No major adverse effects reported (e.g., thrombosis, rhabdomyolysis, nerve damage). Minor adverse effects, including dizziness, numbness, nausea, and delayed onset muscle soreness, were reported by 8% of participants (n = 11). This survey found no major adverse effects and a low prevalence of minor, transient adverse effects. These findings are consistent with previous BFR safety literature and provide a foundational overview of BFR practices among U.S. PTs.
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.