Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Acute effects of ischemic preconditioning on maximal strength and neuromuscular function.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the acute effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) implemented at a low (20 mmHg [IPCSHAM]), moderate (80% of total arterial occlusion pressure [TAOP]; [IPC80]), and high (220 mmHg [IPC220]) pressure prior to an acute bout of fatiguing resistance exercise.
methodsTen females randomly completed IPC on separate visits at a low, moderate, and high pressure across three cycles, where one cycle consisted of five minutes at the assigned pressure followed by five minutes of no pressure. Following IPC, participants performed one-set to volitional failure of unilateral, isotonic, concentric-only leg extension muscle actions at 30% of one-repetition maximum. Concentric peak torque (CPT) and maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) were performed prior to and immediately following the bout of exercise, while surface electromyography (sEMG) was recorded continuously. All dependent variables were analyzed with Bayesian multilevel models.
resultsTotal repetitions completed were 61.7 ± 38.9, 59.2 ± 33.8, and 58.4 ± 19.8 repetitions for IPCSHAM, IPC80, and IPC220, respectively. CPT and MVIC decreased from pretest to posttest (Mean difference [Meandiff] = 48.5 ± 0.9 Nm and 23.0 ± 0.4 Nm, respectively). From the first five to the last five repetitions, sEMG amplitude (Meandiff = -114.0 ± -16.0%) increased, while sEMG mean power frequency (Meandiff = 21.9 ± -0.6%) and neuromuscular efficiency (i.e., Nm:µV) (Meandiff = 0.18 ± 0.01 Nm:µV) decreased.
conclusionApplying IPC did not exhibit an ergogenic effect on maximal strength, nor did it delay the onset of muscle fatigue. These findings suggested that IPC does not attenuate the typical fatigue-induced responses of acute resistance exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41949635What 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.