ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Predictors of lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure across commonly used cuff widths.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limb composition: implications for the determination of arterial occlusion pressure.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- A controlled comparative study on the effect of arterial occlusion pressure on immediate sympathetic and hyperemic responses.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Influence of body position on microcirculatory and autonomic responses during arterial occlusion in healthy adults.PloS one · 2025Article
- Body position and cuff size influence lower limb arterial occlusion pressure and its predictors: implications for standardizing the pressure applied in training with blood flow restriction.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
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
We compared predictors of lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) across commonly used blood flow restriction (BFR) cuff widths (11, 13, 18 cm) and developed prediction equations to estimate AOP for each cuff. Participants (n = 116) underwent measurements of thigh circumference (TC), systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, and AOP was assessed using Doppler ultrasound in a seated position. Multiple linear regression models with commonality analysis and mixed-effects models were used to identify and compare predictors of AOP between each cuff. LASSO regression with bootstrap resampling was used to develop and internally validate prediction equations. TC, SBP, DBP, age, and sex explained 60%-70% of total variance in AOP, with greater predictive power in narrower cuffs. As cuff width increased, TC uniquely accounted for less (36%, 26%, 11% for 11, 13, 18 cm, respectively) and SBP uniquely accounted for more (2%, 6%, 12% for 11, 13, 18 cm, respectively) variance. A cuff width × TC interaction indicated that limb size had greater influence on AOP with narrower cuffs. In contrast, the relationship between SBP and AOP remained stable across cuff widths. Prediction equations demonstrated good predictability and calibration, with limits of agreement ranging from ±18.4 to ±28.6 mmHg and statistical equivalence between predicted and measured AOP. Internal validation showed minimal overfitting. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for cuff width in BFR pressure prescription, with narrower cuffs requiring consideration primarily of TC, and wider cuffs requiring consideration of both TC and SBP. These cuff-specific equations may offer a practical alternative to direct AOP measurement.
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.