Table 1.
Criteria used for grading the certainty of evidence.
Fig 1.
The PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process.
Table 2.
Participant and study characteristics, and physiological adaptations and main findings.
Table 3.
Methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies (PEDro scale).
Fig 2.
Forest plots depicting studies using LL-BFRT compared to studies using LL-RT in muscle strength.
Forest plot comparing low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) and low-load resistance training alone (LL-RT) on muscle strength of a) chest press (1RM) b) shoulder flexion (dynamometry in kgs). Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IV, inverse variance; Random, random effects model; SE, standard error.
Table 4.
Summary of evidence for the effects of LL-BFRT compared with LL-, HL-RT, or no exercise in muscle strength.
Fig 3.
Forest plots depicting studies using LL-BFRT compared to studies using HL-RT in muscle strength.
Forest plots comparing low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFRT) and high load resistance training alone HL-RT in strength of: a) chest press (1RM), and b) sensitivity analysis by removing one study (Thiebaud et al., 2013) that included substantially older participants. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IV, inverse variance; Random, random effects model; SD, standard deviation.
Table 5.
Summary of evidence for the effects of LL-BFRT compared with LL-, HL-RT, or no exercise in muscle size.