ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
A comparison of blood flow restriction devices to assess limb occlusion pressure in supine and standing positions.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare five commercially available blood flow restriction (BFR) devices in determining limb occlusion pressure (LOP), plus two algorithm approaches for determining LOP, in both supine and standing positions. Methods: Twenty-one recreationally active males were assessed for LOP using five BFR devices: Zimmer (surgical-grade tourniquet; reference standard), AirBands, blood pressure cuff with pulse oximeter (BPPO), Smart Cuffs, and Suji. Two additional algorithms based on resting anthropometric/physiological data were also assessed. LOP was measured in both supine and standing positions, with two measurements per posture separated by a five-minute interval. In addition to LOP, participants rated their level of discomfort during each measurement. Results: When compared to the Zimmer device, BPPO ( Conclusion: None of the devices showed consistent LOP measurements across both postures, indicating significant variability depending on device type and body position. These findings underscore the need for posture-specific calibration when using BFR devices and caution against assuming device interchangeability.
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.