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

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF View at publisher

Abstract

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 RCT’s 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-28T02:00:01.590549+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0