SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Dose-response relationships between temporal variables of blood flow restriction exercise and physiological adaptations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate dose-response relationships between temporal variables of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise as a physiological stimulus and changes in physiological adaptations. Methods: Following PRISMA, Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Scopus were searched (inception-3 May 2026) for RCTs in athletes or physically active healthy adolescents and young adults comparing BFR interventions with conventional exercise protocols. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and certainty with GRADE. In total, 15 articles (16 trials; 50 effect sizes) were included. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were computed, with effect directions harmonised for context-dependent outcomes (HR, RER, RPE) so that positive values consistently reflect physiological improvements. These SMDs were pooled using a three-level random-effects model with robust variance estimation (RVE; clustered by study). A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting was used for consistency checks. Results: Overall, BFR exercise elicited significant physiological adaptations (SMD = 0.249, 95% CI: 0.095-0.405), with findings remaining consistent in the DerSimonian-Laird model (overall SMD = 0.231, 95% CI: 0.111-0.349). By intensity, effects were: high-intensity BFR group (SMD = 0.208, 95% CI: 0.163-0.252), moderate-intensity group (SMD = 0.315, 95% CI: -0.465-1.095) and low-intensity group (SMD = 0.293, 95% CI: 0.057-0.529). Meta-regression showed positive associations of effect size with BFR duration (β = 0.0136, Conclusion: The most consistent evidence for BFR-induced improvements relates specifically to VO
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.