ReviewSports medicine and health science2026
Evaluating the effectiveness of blood flow restriction training in older adults: An overview of systematic reviews.
Review in Sports medicine and health science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exercise and physical activity interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
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
Objective: To synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) training on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and functional performance in older adults. Methods: An umbrella review was conducted after a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science until June 17, 2025. Eligible studies were systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, examining low-load BFR training in adults aged ≥ 50 years. Outcomes included muscle strength, hypertrophy, and physical function. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, and methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Results: Twenty-three systematic reviews comprising 53 unique trials were included. Meta-analyses consistently indicated that BFR training promotes hypertrophy comparable to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) and superior to low-load training without BFR. Evidence on strength is mixed: some meta-analyses found gains similar to HL-RT, others reported inferior or superior results. Nevertheless, the majority of evidence suggests that BFR provides greater strength improvements compared to low-load training without BFR. Findings on functional performance were inconsistent. All reviews were rated as low or critically low in methodological quality. Across comparisons, heterogeneity and recurring methodological limitations-such as inadequate blinding and allocation concealment-were noted in primary studies. Conclusion: BFR training is a promising approach to enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in older adults, but evidence certainty is limited by methodological weaknesses in both trials and reviews. Well-designed, high-quality studies are needed to confirm these effects and support clinical implementation.
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.