SynthesisMedicine2026
Effects of blood flow restriction training in adult upper-limb musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood flow restriction training (BFRT) has been proposed as a low-load rehabilitation strategy for symptomatic and postoperative upper-limb musculoskeletal conditions. This review evaluated the clinical effects, tolerability, and prescription characteristics of BFRT in adult upper-limb musculoskeletal rehabilitation.
methodsThis systematic review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420261299726) and reported with reference to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. CENTRAL/Cochrane Library, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE/PubMed, Science Citation Index/Web of Science, and Scopus were searched without a start-date restriction before February 18, 2026; backward reference-list/citation checking was also used. Randomized trials, case series, and case reports were eligible. Findings were synthesized narratively because of heterogeneity, and studies were appraised using risk of bias 2 or design-appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.
resultsTwenty reports were included: 9 parallel-group randomized trials, 1 randomized crossover trial, 2 case series, and 8 case-report publications. Across the reports, 340 participants were enrolled or randomized and 326 contributed to the analyzed/treated clinical samples; 158 were men (48.5%) and 168 were women (51.5%). In a sham-controlled lateral elbow tendinopathy trial, BFRT resulted in a significantly greater reduction in 12-week pain (between-group difference -1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.89 to -0.18; P = .026) and patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) (-15.23, 95% CI -23.57 to -6.90; P < .001). In patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis, PRTEE reduction (-24.20 ± 4.02 vs -15.60 ± 3.71; P = .001) and quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand reduction (-12.83 ± 4.97 vs -7.51 ± 4.72; P = .025) were significantly greater with BFRT plus conventional therapy, whereas between-group pain and strength changes were not significant. In nonoperative distal-radius-fracture rehabilitation, mean activity-pain reduction was 4.0 versus 2.3 points (P = .03). In rotator-cuff tendinopathy, BFRT resulted in significantly greater biceps thickness (P = .002) and internal-rotation strength (P = .040). Conversely, a pragmatic elbow trial found no significant between-group difference in 12-month PRTEE (adjusted contrast + 4.32, 95% CI -9.17 to 17.81; P = .53).
conclusionBFRT may be considered a low-load adjunct in adult upper-limb musculoskeletal rehabilitation settings, but it is not consistently superior to active rehabilitation for pain, strength, or function. Confidence remains limited by small samples, heterogeneous prescriptions and co-interventions, uncontrolled designs, and incomplete adverse-event ascertainment.
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.