Back

Blood flow restriction resistance training as an alternative to resistance training alone to improve strength in elderly: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Mallmann, A. L.; dos Santos, L. P.; Doria, L. D.; Ferreira, L. F.; Ramis, T. R.; da Rosa, L. H. T.

2023-01-24 sports medicine
10.1101/2023.01.19.23284773 medRxiv
Show abstract

The purpose of this research was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare the effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) to the effects of non-training (CON) and traditional RT on strength in elderly people. This was a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), published in English, from inception to 2022, conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality was assessed using GRADE protocol. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 software. Standardized mean differences (SMD), mean difference, were pooled using a random-effects model. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Eight RCTs were included. We found no significant differences in the effects between BFR and RT (SMD = -0.18 [-0.56 to 0.19]; p = 0.34; I2 = 12%). Also, evidence from our research shows that the effect of BFR is better than non-training (CON) for strengthening in older adults (SMD = 0.63 [0.24 to 1.01]; p = 0.001; I2 = 11%). Our primary findings show that training with BFR may be an alternative methodology of training for the elderly and this training strategy may be interesting for health professionals working with elderly people with low tolerance to high intensity RT.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.