ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
The impact of blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training at different loads on lower limb strength and explosiveness in collegiate basketball players.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the effects of an 8-week program of low-load blood flow restriction training combined with chain-based variable resistance training (BFR-VRT) and high-load chain-based variable resistance training (VRT) on lower-limb performance in male college basketball players. A total of 27 players were randomly assigned to the BFR-VRT group (n = 9), the variable resistance training group (n = 9), or a control group (n = 9). The BFR-VRT protocol used pneumatic cuffs applied to the proximal thighs, with training pressure set at 180 mmHg, and combined a 10% 1RM barbell load with 10%-30% 1RM from chains, whereas the VRT protocol consisted of a 55% 1RM barbell load plus 10%-30% 1RM from chains. The control group did not receive any resistance training. Repeated-measures Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant within-group improvements in SQ-1RM, LTC, RTC, countermovement jump, squat jump, DJ-RSI, standing long jump, and 30-m in both the BFR-VRT and VRT groups (all p < 0.05), whereas the CON group showed no significant change (p > 0.05). Between-group comparisons indicated no significant differences among the three groups on these outcomes (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, both BFR-VRT and VRT improved lower-limb performance; under a lower external load, BFR-VRT showed effects comparable to, or trending greater than, VRT on certain performance measures. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojEN.html?proj=201896, identifier ChiCTR2400086132.
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.