SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Effectiveness and safety of blood flow restriction training for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta analysis.
Synthesis in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 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
backgroundBlood flow restriction training (BFRT) enables low-load exercise to elicit adaptations comparable to high-load training, offering a potentially viable option for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have limited tolerance to conventional exercise. Evidence regarding its incremental effectiveness and safety in this population remains incomplete.
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eight databases were searched from inception to April 2026. Studies enrolling adults with T2DM were eligible. A two-stream framework was applied: long-term studies (≥ 8 weeks) informed effectiveness and acute single-session studies informed safety, analysed independently. The primary meta-analysis was restricted to active exercise comparators. Hedges' g was calculated using a random-effects model, with subgroup analyses by training modality and GRADE certainty assessment.
resultsFourteen articles representing 12 independent studies (n = 555) were included. BFRT produced a significant small reduction in total cholesterol compared with active exercise controls (g = -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02; p = 0.039). Overall effects on HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose were non-significant, though exploratory subgroup analyses suggested training modality as a possible moderator. The low-intensity aerobic BFRT yielded moderate effects on HbA1c (g = -0.55; p = 0.003) and fasting plasma glucose (g = -0.67; p = 0.009), whereas low-load resistance BFRT showed no meaningful glycaemic advantage. Given the few studies per subgroup, these modality-specific findings require cautious interpretation. No serious adverse events were recorded and acute haemodynamic responses remained within safety thresholds. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate.
conclusionsBFRT may confer modest incremental metabolic benefits over active exercise in T2DM, with a significant effect observed for total cholesterol and modality-dependent effects on glycaemic outcomes. No serious adverse events were observed under supervised conditions, although the limited evidence base precludes definitive safety characterisation and larger trials with standardised protocols and extended follow-up are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42702720What 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.