↓ Skip to main content

The influence of participant characteristics on the relationship between cuff pressure and level of blood flow restriction

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The influence of participant characteristics on the relationship between cuff pressure and level of blood flow restriction
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00421-016-3399-6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Previous investigations to establish factors influencing the blood flow restriction (BFR) stimulus have determined cuff pressures required for complete arterial occlusion, which does not reflect the partial restriction prescribed for this training technique. This study aimed to establish characteristics that should be accounted for when prescribing cuff pressures required for partial BFR. Fifty participants were subjected to incremental blood flow restriction of the upper and lower limbs by proximal pneumatic cuff inflation. Popliteal and brachial artery diameter, blood velocity and blood flow was assessed with Doppler ultrasound. Height, body mass, limb circumference, muscle-bone cross-sectional area, adipose thickness (AT) and arterial blood pressure were measured and used in different models of hierarchical linear regression to predict the pressure at which 60 % BFR (partial occlusion) occurred. Combined analysis revealed a difference in cuff pressures required to elicit 60 % BFR in the popliteal (111 ± 12 mmHg) and brachial arteries (101 ± 12 mmHg). MAP (r = 0.58) and AT (r = -0.45) were the largest independent determinants of lower and upper body partial occlusion pressures. However, greater variance was explained by upper and lower limb regression models composed of DBP and BMI (48 %), and arm AT and DBP (30 %), respectively. Limb circumference has limited impact on the cuff pressure required for partial blood flow restriction which is in contrast to its recognised relationship with complete arterial occlusion. The majority of the variance in partial occlusion pressure remains unexplained by the predictor variables assessed in the present study.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Researcher 10 6%
Lecturer 7 4%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 54 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 45 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 64 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,930,680
of 28,300,239 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,493
of 4,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,496
of 320,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#38
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,300,239 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.