SynthesisScientific reports2026
Effects of blood flow restriction training on cardiovascular autonomic function in middle-aged and older adults: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) on heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure, and heart rate in middle-aged and older adults. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, randomized controlled trials examining the long-term effects of BFRT on HRV and blood pressure in adults aged 45 years or older were systematically searched in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to December 1, 2025. Meta-analyses were performed using the meta and metafor packages in RStudio. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included. BFRT significantly improved the root mean square of successive differences between adjacent NN intervals (RMSSD; SMD = 0.46, 95% CI [0.21, 0.71], p < 0.001, I² = 35.7%) and reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP; SMD = -0.67, 95% CI [ -1.05, -0.29], p < 0.0001, I² = 54.5%), diastolic blood pressure (DBP; SMD = -0.37, 95% CI [ -0.72, -0.02], p = 0.04, I² = 46.7%), and heart rate (HR; SMD = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.01], p = 0.04, I² = 0%). No significant effects were observed for the standard deviation of normal-to-normal intervals (SDNN), low-frequency power (LF), high-frequency power (HF), low-frequency/high-frequency ratio (LF/HF), or percentage of adjacent normal-to-normal intervals differing by more than 50 ms (pNN50). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that participant characteristics and BFRT protocol variables may partly contribute to heterogeneity in blood pressure responses. Meta-regression indicated that intervention duration was associated with the SBP response, although this finding should be interpreted cautiously. BFRT may increase RMSSD and reduce blood pressure in middle-aged and older adults, with a potential modest reduction in heart rate. However, the certainty of evidence was limited, and subgroup findings related to training frequency and exercise modality should be considered hypothesis-generating only. Larger, well-powered randomized trials with complete sex reporting and direct comparisons of different BFRT modalities and intensities are needed to confirm these findings.
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.