Table 5.
Summary of findings for the comparison: LI-BFR versus RT alone on muscle mass (cm2).
| Resistance Training with Blood Blow Restriction Versus Resistance Training | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Population: Non-active older adults Intervention: resistance training with blood flow restriction Comparison: resistance training Setting: laboratory | |||||
| Outcomes | Relative Effect (95% CI) |
Anticipated Absolute Effect *
(95% CI) |
N° of
Participants (Studies) |
Certainty
of the Evidence (Grade) |
|
| Assumed Risk with Control | Assumed Risk with Intervention | ||||
|
Muscle mass (cm2) Up to 12 weeks |
SMD 0.62 * (−0.09 to 1.34) |
10.7 to 61.7 | Mean strength in intervention was 0.62 higher (0.09 lower to 1.34 higher) |
86 (3 RCTs) |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW 1,2,3 |
|
Muscle mass knee extensors (cm2) Up to 12 weeks |
SMD 0.26 * (−0.39 to 0.91) |
47.7 to 61.7 | Mean strength in intervention was 0.26 higher (0.39 lower to 0.91 higher) |
37 (2 RCTs) |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW 1,3 |
|
Muscle mass knee flexors (cm2) Up to 12 weeks |
SMD −0.20 * (−1.06 to 0.66) |
23.5 | Mean strength in intervention was −0.20 higher (−1.06 lower to 0.66 higher) |
21 (1 RCTs) |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW 1,3 |
|
Muscle mass elbow flexors and extensors (cm2) Up to 12 weeks |
SMD 1.65 * (0.75 to 2.54) |
10.7 to 12 | Mean strength in intervention was 1.65 higher (0.75 lower to 2.54 higher) |
28 (1 RCTs) |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW 1,3 |
The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). cm2: Square centimeters; CI: Confidence interval; SMD: Standard mean difference. * Effects size: 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect [29]. 1 Downgraded by one level due to no randomization process; 2 Downgraded by one level due to inconsistency; 3 Downgraded by one level due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals (imprecision).