↓ Skip to main content

The effects of low-intensity blood flow restricted exercise compared with conventional resistance training on the clinical outcomes of active UK military personnel following a 3-week in-patient…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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.
Title
The effects of low-intensity blood flow restricted exercise compared with conventional resistance training on the clinical outcomes of active UK military personnel following a 3-week in-patient rehabilitation programme: protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0216-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Ladlow, Russell J. Coppack, Shreshth Dharm-Datta, Dean Conway, Edward Sellon, Stephen D. Patterson, Alexander N. Bennett

Abstract

A challenge for rehabilitation practitioners lies in designing optimal exercise programmes that facilitate musculoskeletal (MSK) adaptations whilst simultaneously accommodating biological healing and the safe loading of an injured limb. A growing body of evidence supports the use of resistance training at a reduced load in combination with blood flow restriction (BFR) to enhance hypertrophic and strength responses in skeletal muscle. In-patient rehabilitation has a long tradition in the UK Military, however, the efficacy of low intensity (LI) BFR training has not been tested in this rehabilitation setting. The aims of this study are to determine (1) the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating LI-BFR training in a residential, multidisciplinary treatment programme and (2) provide preliminary data describing the within and between-group treatment effects of a LI-BFR intervention and a conventional resistance training group in military personnel. This is a single-blind randomised controlled feasibility study. A minimum of 28 lower-limb injured UK military personnel, aged 18 to 50 years, attending rehabilitation at the UK Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) will be recruited into the study. After completion of baseline measurements, participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3 weeks (15 days) of intensive multidisciplinary team (MDT) in-patient rehabilitation. Group 1 will receive conventional resistance training 3 days per week. Group 2 will perform twice daily LI-BFR training. Both groups will also undertake the same common elements of the existing MDT programme. Repeat follow-up assessments will be undertaken upon completion of treatment. Group 2 participants will be asked to rate their pain response to LI-BFR training every five sessions. The results will provide information on the feasibility of a full-scale RCT. Recommendations for an adequately powered study to determine the efficacy of LI-BFR training during in-patient rehabilitation can then be made. The study may also provide insights into the potential effectiveness of LI-BFR training as a novel exercise modality to induce muscle adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loading of the lower-limb. ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN 63585315 dated 25 April 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Researcher 11 6%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 59 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 20%
Sports and Recreations 27 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 67 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,812,661
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#238
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,469
of 439,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#8
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 439,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.