↓ Skip to main content

Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
77 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
425 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
Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01269
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Background: There is growing evidence to support the use of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) exercise in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of low-load blood flow restricted (LL-BFR) training versus conventional high mechanical load resistance training (RT) on the clinical outcomes of patient's undergoing inpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) rehabilitation. Study design: A single-blind randomized controlled study. Methods: Twenty-eight lower-limb injured adults completed a 3-week intensive MDT rehabilitation program. Participants were randomly allocated into a conventional RT (3-days/week) or twice-daily LL-BFR training group. Outcome measurements were taken at baseline and 3-weeks and included quadriceps and total thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume, muscle strength [five repetition maximum (RM) leg press and knee extension test, isometric hip extension], pain and physical function measures (Y-balance test, multistage locomotion test-MSLT). Results: A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between groups for any outcome measure post-intervention (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in mean scores for muscle CSA/volume, 5-RM leg press, and 5-RM knee extension (p < 0.01) after treatment. LL-BFR group participants also demonstrated significant improvements in MSLT and Y-balance scores (p < 0.01). The Pain scores during training reduced significantly over time in the LL-BFR group (p = 0.024), with no adverse events reported during the study. Conclusion: Comparable improvements in muscle strength and hypertrophy were shown in LL-BFR and conventional training groups following in-patient rehabilitation. The LL-BFR group also achieved significant improvements in functional capacity. LL-BFR training is a rehabilitation tool that has the potential to induce positive adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits for whom conventional loaded RT is contraindicated. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN63585315, dated 25 April 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 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 425 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 425 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 77 18%
Student > Master 59 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 5%
Student > Postgraduate 21 5%
Other 45 11%
Unknown 175 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 81 19%
Sports and Recreations 69 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 53 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 1%
Other 19 4%
Unknown 188 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 15 January 2023.
All research outputs
#460,245
of 25,129,395 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#252
of 15,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,910
of 343,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#11
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,129,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 343,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.