Trial reportFrontiers in physiology2025
Occlusion pressure and blood pressure adaptations following low-load blood flow restriction training versus moderate-load training: a pilot randomized clinical trial in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Trial report 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This pilot study investigated potential adaptations in limb occlusion pressure (LOP) and compared LOP between low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) and traditional moderate-load training (ML) over 9 weeks in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Secondarily, we compared systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) adaptations between these groups. Methods: Seventeen KOA patients were randomly assigned to the LL-BFR or ML groups. The LL-BFR group performed 75 repetitions (10% 1RM; 60% of LOP). The ML group performed 24 repetitions (60% 1RM; 10% [SHAM] of LOP). In both groups, exercises involving LOP were bilateral hack machine squat and knee extension exercises. LOP, SBP, and DBP were measured before and every 3 weeks until the ninth training week. Results: After 9 weeks, there were no statistically significant changes in LOP, SBP, or DBP within or between groups. LOP decreased by -32.9 mmHg (95% CI: -68.9 to 3.2) in LL-BFR and -17.2 mmHg (95% CI: -49.0 to 14.6) in ML, achieving clinical significance [relative error variance (REV) = 14.6 mmHg]. SBP decreased by -7.5 mmHg (95% CI: -15.6 to 0.6) in LL-BFR and -1.1 mmHg (95% CI: -8.2 to 6.0) in ML. DBP decreased by -3.7 mmHg (95% CI: -9.2 to 1.7) in LL-BFR and -1.9 mmHg (95% CI: -6.8 to 2.9) in ML. Conclusion: We observed a non-significant trend toward a reduction in LOP following 9 weeks of LL-BFR in patients with KOA, with a mean point estimate that exceeded a pre-defined threshold for clinical significance, although the wide confidence intervals indicate substantial uncertainty. Furthermore, SBP and DBP showed no significant changes, and no group differences emerged across outcomes. Practically, these findings suggest that LOP remains stable throughout a rehabilitation program, potentially reducing the burden of frequent LOP reassessment in clinical LL-BFR applications. Trial registration: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-6pcrfm/.
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.