SynthesisSports medicine - open2026
Effectiveness of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Neurological Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMuscle weakness is a common impairment following neurological disorders, yet traditional high-load training aimed at addressing this is often impractical or unsafe for these patients. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has emerged as a viable method, capable of eliciting physiological adaptations comparable to high-load training while using significantly lower mechanical loads.
objectiveThis study aimed to summarize the clinical applications of BFR training for neurological disorders and assess its effectiveness and safety in improving muscle strength and functional outcomes.
methodsThe systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, PEDro, Cochrane, CINAHL, CNKI were searched for intervention studies comparing BFR with diverse control interventions. The primary outcomes were muscle strength and functional outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were also performed.
resultsThirty-seven studies involving 963 participants were included, with individuals having stroke (n = 639), Parkinson's disease (n = 18), multiple sclerosis (n = 128), spinal cord injury (n = 170), cerebral palsy (n = 1), peripheral nerve injury (n = 2), and transverse myelitis (n = 1). Our results revealed that the addition of BFR significantly increased muscle strength, with effect sizes of 0.752 (95% CI 0.49-1.02). Significant improvements were also observed in balance, Fugl-Meyer Lower Extremity assessment, and Modified Barthel Index. Subgroup analyses revealed that onset time was a crucial factor for the effectiveness of BFR on clinical outcomes. Furthermore, BFR training demonstrated overall safety in neurological rehabilitation.
conclusionThese findings support the effectiveness of BFR training in improving muscle strength and functional outcomes in neurological rehabilitation, without any significant adverse events. However, further high-quality research is needed to validate the efficacy of BFR and refine its training protocols for individuals with neurological disorders.
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.