Trial reportPhysiological reports2025
Impact of blood flow restriction cuff design on upper body exercise: A randomized crossover trial in resistance-trained adults.
Trial report in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Venous hemodynamics during blood flow restriction exercise: Impact of cuff type and arm position.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Trial
- The effect of blood flow restriction resistance exercise on arm muscle strength and isokinetic contraction parameters.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Autoregulation during blood flow restricted exercise offers no additional benefit on thigh muscle hypertrophy and strength adaptations in trained participants: a randomized within-subject 8-week trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Unpacking the blood flow restriction device features literature - set/interface pressure: recommendations and considerations for an evolving field.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Advances and limitations of semi-elastic pneumatic cuffs in blood flow restriction training: a narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differences in cuff blood flow restriction (BFR) bladder design (single-chambered [SC-BFR] and multi-chambered [MC-BFR] systems) may influence exercise performance, perceptual responses, and cardiovascular outcomes. In a randomized cross-over design, twenty-six healthy physically active individuals (22.6 ± 5.5 years old, 10 females; 25 reported engaging in resistance-exercise consistently) performed four sets of bilateral biceps curls to volitional failure using 20% of the 1-repetition maximum under three conditions: SC-BFR, MC-BFR, and a non-BFR control, post-exercise perceptual responses, and cardiovascular measures pre- and post-exercise. SC-BFR significantly reduced total repetitions compared to MC-BFR and N-BFR (p < 0.001). MC-BFR and N-BFR conditions demonstrated comparable performance in later sets. RPD was significantly higher in SC-BFR compared to MC-BFR and N-BFR (p < 0.001), while MC-BFR elicited lower RPE than SC-BFR (p = 0.025). Both SC-BFR and N-BFR conditions significantly reduced post-exercise diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure, whereas MC-BFR did not. No significant differences in PWV were observed across conditions. SC-BFR induces greater repetition reduction and perceptual discomfort than MC-BFR, while MC-BFR demonstrates similar performances and comfort to N-BFR in later sets. Findings suggest cuff design plays a role in acute BFR responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.