ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2026
Acute responses of isometric handgrip exercise combined with blood flow restriction in the elderly.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2026. 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
This study aimed to investigate the influence of isometric handgrip exercise under different blood flow restriction times on acute responses related to safety and effectiveness in the elderly. Eleven physically active elderly people (70.1 ± 7.1 years) were subjected to three protocols (P1-1m), (P2-30s) and (P3-Control) of isometric handgrip contraction. Hemodynamic markers (SBP, DBP and HR), hematological markers (D-dimer, fibrinogen, APTT and ultrasensitive CRP) and surface electromyography (sEMG) of the flexor digitorum superficialis and extensor digitorum communis muscles were analyzed. The hemodynamic variables showed no significant difference P < 0.05 between the moments before, immediately after, after 15 minutes, and after 30 minutes. The hematological variables showed no significant difference P < 0.05 between the pre- and post-30 minute time points. The sEMG variables showed a significant difference of p< 0.01 at the beginning, middle and end of each series and between the complete series for both muscles analyzed. In line with the aim of this study, we can accept the hypothesis that the P1-1m, P2-30s and P3-Control protocols are safe. However, we reject the hypothesis that the BFR protocols result in greater muscle activation compared to the protocol without BFR.
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.