Effects of exercise training with blood flow restriction on vascular function in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood flow restricted exercise (BFRE) improves physical fitness, with theorized positive effects on vascular function. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to report (1) the effects of BFRE on vascular function in adults with or without chronic health conditions, and (2) adverse events and adherence reported for BFRE. METHODOLOGY: Five electronic databases were searched by two researchers independently to identify studies reporting vascular outcomes following BFRE in adults with and without chronic conditions. When sufficient data were provided, meta-analysis and exploratory meta-regression were performed. RESULTS: = 41 older adults with chronic conditions). Meta-analysis (k = 9 studies) indicated that compared to exercise without blood flow restriction, resistance training with blood flow restriction resulted in significantly greater effects on endothelial function (SMD 0.76; 95% CI [0.36-1.14]). No significant differences were estimated for changes in vascular structure (SMD -0.24; 95% CI [-1.08 to 0.59]). In exploratory meta-regression analyses, several experimental protocol factors (design, exercise modality, exercised limbs, intervention length and number of sets per exercise) were significantly associated with the effect size for endothelial function outcomes. Adverse events in BFRE studies were rarely reported. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence, predominantly available in healthy young adults, on the effect of BFRE on vascular function. Signals pointing to effect of specific dynamic resistance exercise protocols with blood flow restriction (≥4 weeks with exercises for the upper and lower limbs) on endothelial function warrant further investigation.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".