Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
The effects of ischemic preconditioning and placebo maneuvers are similar during arm-cranking performance in upper-body trained athletes.
Trial report in European journal of applied 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
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to examine the effects of local ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on 45 s arm-crank Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) performance and accompanying physiological responses in athletes.
methodsEighteen (9 male, 9 female) athletes (22.8 ± 3.5 years) completed a baseline and three experimental trials: control (CON; 30 min rest), IPC (4 ⋅ 5 min bilaterally at limb occlusion pressure), and placebo (PLA; 4 ⋅ 5 min at 40 mm Hg). WAnT performance, oxygen consumption (V̇O2), heartrate (HR), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and blood lactate [La–]b responses were assessed.
resultsAbsolute mean power outputs (MPOA; W) were similar between IPC and PLA (p = 0.06) and significantly greater than CON (IPC: 370 ± 105, PLA: 363 ± 102, CON: 349 ± 91 W, p < 0.001). IPC increased relative MPO (MPOR; W·kg–1) compared to PLA and CON (IPC: 4.8 ± 1.0, PLA: 4.7 ± 1.0, CON: 4.6 ± 0.9 W·kg–1, p < 0.001). V̇O2, HR, NIRS, and [La–]b responses during and post-exercise were unaffected by IPC.
conclusionsAcute IPC of the arms elicited trivial differences in performance during 45 s arm-cranking WAnTs in upper-body trained athletes. Under these specific conditions, no changes were detected in the measured physiological responses, which limits insight into potential mechanisms for IPC to enhance performance in arm-dominant exercises.
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.