ArticleBMJ open2025
Efficacy and acceptability of different blood flow restriction training interventions during the rehabilitation of military personnel with lower limb musculoskeletal injuries: protocol for a two-phase randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
The Effects of Different Blood Flow Restriction Training Methodologies During the Rehabilitation of Military Personnel With Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Injuries Primarily Limited by Pain: a 2 Part Randomised Controlled Trial (Phase One)
The Effects of Different Blood Flow Restriction Training Methodologies During the Rehabilitation of Military Personnel With Lower Limb Musculoskeletal Injuries Primarily Limited by Pain: a 2 Part Randomised Controlled Trial (Phase Two)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood Flow Restriction Training for Rehabilitation and Readiness in Tactical Populations: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Blood Flow Restriction Training, Molecular Modulators, and Musculoskeletal Health: A Scoping Review and Translational Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Stratifying Recovery Pathways in ACL Reconstruction: A Medicine-Engineering Integration Perspective for Improved Clinical Precision.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundMusculoskeletal injury (MSKI) is the leading cause of medical downgrading and discharge within the UK military, with lower limb MSKI having the greatest incidence, negatively impacting operational readiness. Pain is a primary limiting factor to rehabilitation progress following MSKI. Heavy-load resistance training (RT; ie, loads >70% 1-repetition maximum) is traditionally used but may be contraindicated due to pain, potentially prolonging recovery and leading to failure of essential physical employment standards for UK military personnel. Low-load RT with blood flow restriction (BFR) can promote favourable morphological and physiological adaption, as well as elicit hypoalgesia in healthy and clinical populations (eg, post-operative), and has proven a viable option in military rehabilitation settings. The acceptability and tolerance of higher relative BFR pressures in persistent pain populations are unknown due to the complexity of presentation and the perception of discomfort experienced during BFR exercise. Greater relative pressures (ie, 80% limb occlusion pressure (LOP)) elicit a greater hypoalgesic response in pain-free individuals, but greater perceived discomfort which may not be tolerated in persistent pain populations. However, lower relative pressure (ie, 40% LOP) has elicited hypoalgesia in pain-free individuals, which therefore may be more clinically acceptable and tolerated in persistent pain populations. The primary aim of both randomised controlled trials (RCT) is to investigate the efficacy and acceptability of using high-frequency, low-load BFR-RT in UK military personnel with lower limb MSKI where persistent pain is the primary limiting factor for progression. METHODOLOGY: The presented protocol is a two-phase RCT based within a military rehabilitation setting. Phase One is a 1-week RCT to determine the most efficacious and acceptable BFR-RT protocol (7× BFR-RT sessions over 5 days at 40% or 80% LOP; n=28). Phase Two is a 3-week RCT comparing the most clinically acceptable BFR pressure, determined by Phase One (21× BFR-RT sessions over 15 days; n=26) to usual care within UK Defence Rehabilitation residential rehabilitation practices. Outcomes will be recorded at baseline, daily and following completion of the intervention. The primary outcome will be the brief pain inventory. Secondary outcomes include blood biomarkers for inflammation and pain (Phase Two only), injury-specific outcome measures, lower extremity function scale, objective measures of muscle strength and neuromuscular performance, and pressure pain threshold testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee (2318/MODREC/24) and Northumbria University. All study findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered with Clinical Trials. The registration numbers are as follows: NCT06621914 (Phase One) and NCT06621953 (Phase Two).
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.