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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
conceptualization; data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, validation, visualization, roles/writing – original draft
data curation, formal analysis, methodology, software, validation
formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software
conceptualization, investigation, methodology, visualization
conceptualization, methodology, supervision, visualization, writing – review & editing
conceptualization, data curation, methodology, supervision, validation, visualization, writing – review & editing.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
