MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026983900 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002316

Pressure Prescription for Blood Flow Restriction Exercise

2020· letter· en· W3026983900 on OpenAlexaffabout
James McEwen, Luke Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCuffBlood flowBlood pressureOcclusionCardiologyDiastoleStimulus (psychology)ArteryAnesthesiaInternal medicineSurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor-in-Chief, We read with interest the article by Crossley et al. (1) investigating the relationship between blood flow restriction cuff pressure and blood flow during rest and exercise. The authors measured blood flow to reflect an “ischemic stimulus” across different arterial occlusion pressures (AOP), reporting that the ischemic stimulus induced by a nontourniquet cuff does not have a linear relationship with pressures between 30% and 80% AOP. They recommend using lower pressures (i.e., 40% AOP) to provide the same ischemic stimulus as higher pressures (i.e., 80% AOP). Although we agree that lower pressures may be more comfortable, we believe that methodological limitations may have led to erroneous conclusions. We wish to extend their discussion by addressing specific aspects of the study methodology. This study emphasizes the importance of measuring limb occlusion pressure (LOP), which is the minimum pressure required for occlusion of all arterial vessels in a limb underlying a surgical-grade tourniquet cuff (2), rather than AOP. Measuring a superficial artery by Doppler ultrasound does not provide accurate and reliable estimation of LOP: by applying a nonuniform pressure over the superficial artery, blood flow in this artery can be restricted without similarly restricting blood flow in deeper arteries. Therefore, a percentage of occlusion in one superficial artery (e.g., 40% AOP) does not necessarily represent the same total ischemic stimulus at 40% LOP. Doppler ultrasound was used to measure mean blood velocity and vessel diameter during end-diastole, with calculation of volumetric blood flow in the superficial femoral artery. Without measurement of total volumetric limb blood flow distal to the cuff, the total ischemic stimulus cannot be determined. Doppler method of calculating blood flow has limitations presenting possible sources of error. Considerable random error is attributable to measurement of the cross-sectional area and angle of approach (3), which can be minimized by repeated measurements and calculation of a mean. In addition, small errors in measurement of the vessel diameter (which changes during the cardiac cycle) result in large changes in cross-sectional area calculation and thus volume flow calculation (4). The Hokanson cuff used in this study does not have stiffeners, and the bladder is not designed to encircle the entire limb. This results in nonuniform pressure applied to the limb circumferentially, nonuniform restriction of blood flow, and may affect measurement results. Using a surgical-grade tourniquet cuff to produce uniform pressure distribution around the circumference of the limb would more accurately reflect the actual pressure applied to the limb (5). Finally, the authors use a measurement of blood flow at rest to make a conclusion on blood flow during exercise, which assumes that the resting measurements can be transferred to exercise. However, blood flow during exercise was only measured at 40% of resting and exercising AOP. Therefore, their conclusion that 40% AOP will provide a similar ischemic stimulus to 80% AOP during exercise is not supported by appropriate experimental data. To conclude, we recommend that the authors’ conclusion that lower pressures will provide a comparable ischemic stimulus to higher pressures should be interpreted with caution. James McEwen Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine University of British Columbia Vancouver CANADA Luke Hughes Faculty of Sport, Health and Applied Science St. Mary’s University London, UNITED KINGDOM

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207