Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2024
Safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise in individuals with neurological disorders: A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jønsson Anette Bach, Krogh Søren, Laursen Henrik Sehested, Aagaard Per, Kasch Helge, Nielsen Jørgen Feldbaek
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review evaluated the safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) on skeletal muscle size, strength, and functional performance in individuals with neurological disorders (ND).
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility and performed data extraction and quality assessments.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Study populations with ND, BFRE as intervention modality, outcome measures related to safety or efficacy.
RESULTS: Out of 443 studies identified, 16 were deemed eligible for review. Three studies examined the efficacy and safety of BFRE, one study focused on efficacy results, and 12 studies investigated safety. Disease populations included spinal cord injury (SCI), inclusion body myositis (sIBM), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and stroke. A moderate-to-high risk of bias was presented in the quality assessment. Five studies reported safety concerns, including acutely elevated pain and rating of perceived exertion levels, severe fatigue, muscle soreness, and cases of autonomic dysreflexia. Two RCTs reported a significant between-group difference in physical function outcomes, and two RCTs reported neuromuscular adaptations.
CONCLUSION: BFRE seems to be a potentially safe and effective training modality in individuals with ND. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited quality and number of studies, small sample sizes, and a general lack of heterogeneity within and between the examined patient cohorts.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility and performed data extraction and quality assessments.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Study populations with ND, BFRE as intervention modality, outcome measures related to safety or efficacy.
RESULTS: Out of 443 studies identified, 16 were deemed eligible for review. Three studies examined the efficacy and safety of BFRE, one study focused on efficacy results, and 12 studies investigated safety. Disease populations included spinal cord injury (SCI), inclusion body myositis (sIBM), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and stroke. A moderate-to-high risk of bias was presented in the quality assessment. Five studies reported safety concerns, including acutely elevated pain and rating of perceived exertion levels, severe fatigue, muscle soreness, and cases of autonomic dysreflexia. Two RCTs reported a significant between-group difference in physical function outcomes, and two RCTs reported neuromuscular adaptations.
CONCLUSION: BFRE seems to be a potentially safe and effective training modality in individuals with ND. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited quality and number of studies, small sample sizes, and a general lack of heterogeneity within and between the examined patient cohorts.