ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Standardizing ischemic preconditioning research in applied exercise physiology.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on ischemic preconditioning (IPC) within applied exercise physiology has expanded considerably over the past few decades. While IPC demonstrates potential for enhancing exercise performance and accelerating muscle recovery, its widespread adoption is currently hindered by substantial heterogeneity in protocols and applications. Notably, recent evidence suggests that the reported ergogenic effects of IPC become less apparent in studies utilizing a three-arm experimental design (i.e., IPC, placebo and control). This variability compromises reproducibility and complicates the establishment of IPC as a reliable physiological stimulus and an ergogenic aid. Consequently, this narrative review aims to advance the field by identifying gaps, proposing methodological standards and encouraging the standardization of protocol design. We evaluate critical parameters, including cuff width, inflation pressure, number of cycles, and the duration of occlusion and reperfusion, while addressing the implications of experimental design and the confounding influence of placebo effects. As significant questions remain regarding the optimization of IPC for physical work capacity and muscle recovery, a standardized framework is urgently required to guide future research and evidence-based practice in human performance physiology.
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.