ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2026
Cardiovascular responses during blood flow-restricted resistance exercise: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (BFR-RE) is used to elicit hypertrophy and strength adaptations with low external loads, making it attractive for clinical and rehabilitative populations. However, concerns regarding exaggerated cardiovascular responses highlight the need to clarify haemodynamic effects before broader clinical adoption. Objectives: To compare acute cardiovascular responses-systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR)-during low-intensity BFR-RE (LI-BFR), low-intensity resistance exercise (LI-RE) and high-intensity resistance exercise (HI-RE). Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ResearchGate, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through February 2025. Randomised controlled trials comparing SBP, DBP and HR during LI-BFR versus LI-RE and/or HI-RE in healthy adults were included. Data synthesis: Four trials for LI-BFR versus LI-RE (n=86) and three for LI-BFR versus HI-RE (n=46) were identified, with six reports eligible for random-effects meta-analyses adjusted for muscle and age. SBP (MD=14.06 mm Hg; 95% CI (0.24 to 27.90) and DBP (MD=11.18 mm Hg; 95% CI (2.8 to 19.57)) were significantly increased during LI-BFR versus LI-RE, while HR was not significant (MD=6.00 bpm; 95% CI (-5.47 to 17.5)). HI-RE and LI-BFR did not differ in effects on SBP (MD=0.53 mm Hg; 95% CI (-15.21 to 16.28)), DBP (MD=2.54 mm Hg; 95% CI(-5.59 to 10.67)) or HR (MD=-5.90 bpm; 95% CI (-12.55 to 0.74)). However, risk of bias and certainty of evidence analyses presented some concerns of bias and low to moderate certainty. Conclusion: Arterial blood pressure is exaggerated during LI-BFR when compared with LI-RE. Data on real-time cardiovascular responses during BFR-RE are limited; therefore, future studies should be designed to measure haemodynamic parameters during exercise accurately. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42025633694.
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.