Fig 1.
Flow diagram of search results and study selection.
Table 1.
Characteristic of the included studies.
Table 2.
Training methodology of the included studies.
Table 3.
Description of changes in mean deltas in muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality among included studies.
Fig 2.
Forest plot of the comparison between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on muscle strength assessed by specific tests for quadriceps strength (n = 4 studies).
LIRTBFR: Low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction; MIRT: Moderate intensity resistance training; HIRT: High intensity resistance training; 1RM: 1 maximum repetition; Kg: kilogram; Nm: Newton-meter; I2: Heterogeneity of studies; SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; SMD: standardized mean difference; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; IV: inverse variance; Random: random effects model.
Fig 3.
Forest plot of the comparison between LIRTBFR and LIRT on muscle strength assessed by knee extension (n = 2 studies).
LIRTBFR: Low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction; LIRT: Low intensity resistance training without blood flow restriction; 1RM: 1 maximum repetition; 3RM: 3 maximum repetition test; Kg: kilogram; I2: Heterogeneity of studies; SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; IV: inverse variance; Random: random effects model.
Fig 4.
Forest plot of the comparison between LIRTBFR and HIRT on muscle mass (n = 2 studies).
LIRTBFR: Low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction; HIRT: High intensity resistance training; mm²: square millimeter; I2: Heterogeneity of studies; SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; IV: inverse variance; Random: random effects model.
Fig 5.
Forest plot of the comparison between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on functionality assessed by tests with patterns similar to walking (n = 4 studies).
LIRTBFR: Low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction; MIRT: Moderate intensity resistance training; HIRT: High intensity resistance training; TUG test: Time Up and Go test; [s]: seconds; [m/s]: meters per seconds; I2: Heterogeneity of studies; SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; SMD: standardized mean difference; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; IV: inverse variance; Random: random effects model.
Table 4.
Description of quality assessment using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).
Table 5.
Methodological quality of the studies using the tool RoB 2.0.