Effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Mohammad Sidiq; Aksh Chahal; Nitesh Bansal; Sajjad Alam; Rituraj Verma; Krishna Reddy Vajrala; Jyoti Sharma; Sumera Khan; Yamini Sharma; Balamurugan Janakiraman; Richa Hirendra Rai; Nitesh Malhotra

doi:10.12688/f1000research.140084.1

Home Browse Effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Clinical trial

Effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Mohammad Sidiq ¹, Aksh Chahal¹, Nitesh Bansal², [...] Sajjad Alam¹, Rituraj Verma¹, Krishna Reddy Vajrala¹, Jyoti Sharma¹, Sumera Khan¹, Yamini Sharma¹, Balamurugan Janakiraman^3,4, Richa Hirendra Rai⁵, Nitesh Malhotra⁶

Mohammad Sidiq ¹, Aksh Chahal¹, [...] Nitesh Bansal², Sajjad Alam¹, Rituraj Verma¹, Krishna Reddy Vajrala¹, Jyoti Sharma¹, Sumera Khan¹, Yamini Sharma¹, Balamurugan Janakiraman^3,4, Richa Hirendra Rai⁵, Nitesh Malhotra⁶

PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 203201, India
² Jindal School of Public Health & Human Develeopment, O P Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, 131001, India
³ SRM College of Physiotherapy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology (SRMIST), Kattankulathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 6032032, India
⁴ Faculty of Physiotherapy, Madhav University, Abu Road, Rajasthan, India
⁵ Physiotherapy, Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, New Delhi, Delhi, 110017, India
⁶ Department of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Science, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, 121003, India

Mohammad Sidiq
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Aksh Chahal
Roles: Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Nitesh Bansal
Roles: Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Sajjad Alam
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration

Rituraj Verma
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources

Krishna Reddy Vajrala
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology

Jyoti Sharma
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Sumera Khan
Roles: Investigation, Methodology

Yamini Sharma
Roles: Resources, Software, Supervision

Balamurugan Janakiraman
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Richa Hirendra Rai
Roles: Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Nitesh Malhotra
Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Keywords

Blood Flow Restriction Training, Persistent Neck Pain, Pressure Pain threshold, Hand grip strength, hand function

Corresponding author: Mohammad Sidiq

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 Sidiq M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Sidiq M, Chahal A, Bansal N et al. Effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140084.1) First published: 31 Aug 2023, 12:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140084.1) Latest published: 31 May 2024, 12:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140084.2)

Introduction

Persistent neck pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition that affects a significant number of adults worldwide.¹ The burden of this condition on individuals’ quality of life and productivity underscores the need for effective and innovative interventions to alleviate pain and improve functional outcomes.² Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has emerged as a promising technique that has shown potential benefits in enhancing muscular strength and promoting tissue adaptation without subjecting the body to high-intensity exercises.³ Despite its applications in various musculoskeletal conditions, the potential efficacy of BFR training in managing persistent neck pain remains relatively unexplored. This study protocol aims to investigate the effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults suffering from persistent neck pain. Utilizing a randomized controlled trial design, this research seeks to provide valuable insights into the role of BFR training as a potential therapeutic option for this challenging and often refractory condition. The rationale for examining pressure pain threshold lies in its significance as a common clinical measure for assessing pain sensitivity and tolerance, particularly in musculoskeletal pain conditions.⁴ Understanding the impact of BFR training on pressure pain threshold will offer valuable information on the technique’s ability to modulate pain perception in individuals with persistent neck pain. Additionally, assessing hand function is of paramount importance, as neck pain can often result in functional limitations that affect daily activities and work performance.⁵ Investigating the effects of BFR training on hand function will shed light on whether this intervention can lead to functional improvements and enhance the overall well-being of individuals experiencing neck pain. The results obtained from this research hold the potential to inform healthcare practitioners, physiotherapists, and other relevant professionals about the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating BFR training into the management strategies for individuals with persistent neck pain. By addressing the current research gap and exploring the impact of BFR training on pressure pain threshold and hand function, this study protocol aspires to contribute to evidence-based practices in pain management and rehabilitation, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for those affected by persistent neck pain.

Objectives

I. To evaluate the effect of BFRT in alleviating neck pain and improving the hand function among adults with persistent neck pain.
II. To study the impact of BFRT on disability and quality of life among patients with persistent neck pain.
III. To study the long term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain.

Protocol

Study design

This study will be a prospective randomized active controlled trail to be done at Physiotherapy Department, Galgotias University.

Null hypothesis

There is no difference between the BFRT and conventional physiotherapy group in alleviation of pain, and hand function among adults with neck pain.

Alternate hypothesis

BFRT will have a significant impact in reducing pressure pain threshold and improving hand function in patients with persistent neck pain among adults.

Subjects

One hundred and ten self-reporting persistent neck pain for more than three months duration will be screened for eligibility and recruited in the study. After obtaining informed consent, the participants will be randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio to the BFR training group and the control group using a computer-generated randomization sequence. Allocation concealment will be ensured to maintain blinding and reduce potential bias. Sample size was calculated using Gpower version 3.1.9.4 for Windows by assuming effect size of 0.5(Cohen’s D medium size effect was assumed) with the margin of error (α) to test the level of significance was set at 0.05 and (1-α) 80% βpower and confidence interval at 95%, the final derived sample with added 10% of contingency was n=112⁶ (Figure 1). See Figure 2 for central and non-central distributions.

Figure 1. Plot describing the total sample size with power (1-β).

Figure 2. Plot showing central and non-central distributions.

Eligibility criteria

Participants with self-reported persistent neck pain for than 3 months, aged 18 and above, both males and females, patients with weak power grip, impaired hand precision function and willing to prospectively attend the interventions will be included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria will be patients those who have history of receiving BFRT, deformity of upper extremity, spinal deformity, unhealed injuries in spine and upper extremity, uncontrolled hypertension, history of deep vein thrombosis and medically diagnosed neurological conditions that interfere with hand function or causes pain.

Methods

Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants who are eligible to be included in the study. The diagnosis of persistent neck pain will be made based on previous history and duration. Patients with radiating pain to shoulders or hands will be excluded. Enrolment, intervention, and assessment will be done as per the SPIRIT guideline (Table 1). Participants will be obtained from the OPD of Physiotherapy Department and from all over the university including the teaching, non-teaching staff, from camps nearby and students. Ethical clearance has been obtained from Departmental Ethics Committee on 19/05/2023 with reference number DEC/PT/GU/2023 and the Trial has been registered with Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2023/06/053439. All patients diagnosed with chronic neck pain and weak hand function will sign the informed consent. Demographic data, history and other data will be obtained at the baseline. The study will be done in accordance to the declaration of Helsinki.⁷

Table 1. Schedule of enrolment, Intervention, and assessment, the SPIRIT guidelines.

Study period	Screening	Baseline (T0)	Training Sessions			Intervention Period in weeks								Post interventions Assessment (T1)	Follow up T2
Time (Weeks)	-4 to -1		S1 to S7	S8 to S16	S17 to S24	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	x	x
Patient Data	x
Informed Consent	x
Demographic Data	x
Medical History	x
Allocation		x
Control group		x				x	x	x	x	x	x	x	X		x
Intervention group		x				x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x
Pressure pain Threshold		x												x	x
Hand Function		x												x	x
WHO5 INDEX		x												x	x
Compliance and motivation			x	x	x									x
Patient Diary		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Routine PT	X	x
Adverse Effects			x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x

Intervention

All patients will receive standard physiotherapy care. It will include thermo therapy, neck isotonic exercises. The Experimental group will also receive BFR with single session with 75 vol LOP 40 to 50 % for upper grip ball exercise (Light resistance) wrist curls and wrist extension using long leavers Flexibar radial and ulnar deviation. Follow up will be done for the patients on second visit after 8 weeks and long-term follow up after 6 months for others on phones who fail to come for follow up. All the patients will be explained about the possible benefits and complete procedure of the study and consent will be signed by each patient who is willing to participate in the study. They will be told its voluntary and they can withdraw anytime from the study and it won’t affect their treatment if they refuse to be part of the study. Patient information will be kept confidential. Each individual will serve as self-control to report about the possible benefit in pain score after receiving BFRT and after follow up. See Table 2 for the full BFRT protocol.⁸

Table 2. Protocol of BFR.

Mode of exercise prescription with BFR
Frequency	2-3 times a week for 8 weeks
Load	20-40% 1RM
Restriction time	5-10 min per exercise (reperfusion between exercises)
Type	Small and large muscle groups (arms and legs/unilateral or bilateral)
Sets	2-4
Cuff	5 (small,) 10x 12 (medium), 17 or 18 (large)
Repetitions Pressure	(75 reps) – 30 x 15 x 15, or sets to failure 40-80 % AOP
Rest between sets	30-60 seconds
Restriction form	Continuous or intermittent
Execution Speed	1-2 (concentric or eccentric)
Execution	Until concentric failure or when planned rep scheme is completed

Outcome measures

Pressure pain threshold using Algometer

Using an algometer, a portable instrument that measures pressure sensitivity at particular anatomical locations in the neck region, the pressure pain threshold (PPT) will be determined. The algometer consists of a gauge with a pressure-sensing tip attached that measures applied pressure in kilopascals (kPa). Before the assessments begins, the algometer will be calibrated to ensure accuracy and consistency of measurements. Participants will be comfortably seated in an upright position with their neck muscles relaxed. It is essential to explain the procedure to the participant, ensuring they understand the assessment and can provide feedback on their pain perception. Specific anatomical points in the neck region will be chosen for the assessment. Commonly, these points include the trapezius, levator scapulae, and sternocleidomastoid muscles. The researcher will progressively apply pressure to the selected spots using the algometer. A button must be pressed to cease the pressure application or the participant must verbally report feeling pain for the pressure to increase at a constant rate (for example, 1 kPa/s).

Neck Outcome Score

The Neck Outcome Score (NOS) is a self-reported questionnaire that assesses various aspects of neck pain and its impact on daily activities and quality of life. Participants will be provided with the NOS questionnaire, and the research team will explain its purpose and how to complete it. It’s important to ensure that participants understand the questions and how to score their responses accurately. The NOS typically includes questions related to pain intensity, pain-related disability, functional limitations, and the impact of neck pain on quality of life.

Grip strength using hand help dynamometer

Grip strength will be measured using a handheld dynamometer. We will ensure that the participant is well-rested and not fatigued before the measurement. We will also inform the participant about the purpose of the grip strength measurement and the procedure involved. The dynamometer will be adjusted to fit the participant’s hand size. The participant will be seated on a chair without armrests, ensuring proper posture with their back straight, feet flat on the ground, and forearm resting on a flat surface. We will instruct the participant to hold the dynamometer in their dominant hand. When the participant is ready, they should be instructed to squeeze the dynamometer handle with maximum effort for about 3 to 5 seconds. The researcher can provide encouragement to the participant during the measurement to ensure they exert their maximum effort. The highest grip strength measurement achieved during the trial will be recorded.

WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire

The WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire is used to assess an individual’s subjective well-being and quality of life. We will briefly explain the purpose of the WHO-5 questionnaire to the participant and let them know that it’s designed to assess their emotional well-being and quality of life. Participants will rate their agreement with each statement on a scale from 0 to 5, where 0 indicates “at no time” and 5 indicates “all of the time”. After participants have provided their responses, we can assist them in calculating their total score. A higher score on the WHO-5 indicates better emotional well-being and quality of life.

Statistical analysis

Data will be analysed using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 21 for Windows. The patient characteristics at the baseline will be presented as mean, standard deviation and proportion with 95% confidence interval. The kolmogorov-smirnov and Shapiro Wilk test will be performed to assess the normality distribution of all the outcome scores. The student’s t- test and paired t-test will be used to compare between the groups and intra group and multiple regression analysis will be done to check for any correlation or any factor influencing the outcomes of the study.

Discussion

The present study protocol presents a RCT testing the effectiveness of BFRT on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. The intervention aims to reduce pain and hand function by the proposed mechanism. The study intends to employ a randomized controlled trial design, ensuring scientific rigor and minimizing bias. By comparing the BFR training intervention group with a control group, researchers seek to assess the impact of this innovative technique on two primary outcomes: pressure pain threshold and hand function. Therefore, we expect that the adults with neck pain and compromised hand function in the BFRT group will exhibit improvement in terms of pain and hand function in comparison to the neck pain patients in the conventional group. The significance of this research lies in its potential to contribute valuable insights into managing neck pain and improving hand function using a novel approach like BFR training. If the results show positive effects, it could pave the way for a non-invasive, safe, and cost-effective intervention for individuals dealing with persistent neck pain. Ultimately, this study may have a meaningful impact on the quality of life for those suffering from this prevalent issue, offering hope for improved pain management and functional recovery.

Study Status: At the moment the authors are involved in training the assessors and physiotherapists those who will be involved in interventions and we are planning to start screening after one month.

Social and research benefit

The chronic neck pain may progress to cause disability and diminished quality of life. A non-invasive timely intervention may cause halting adverse effects of central sensitization in patients suffering chronic neck pain. A simple and novel intervention may be incorporated.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

References

1. Woolf AD, Erwin J, March L: The need to address the burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2012; 26(2): 183–224. Publisher Full Text
2. Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, et al.: The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population: A population-based cohort study. Pain. 2004; 112(3): 267–273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Saraf A, Goyal M, Goyal K: Blood Flow Restriction Training-An Overview and Implication in New Generation Physical Therapy: A Narrative Review. J. Lifestyle Med. 2022; 12(2): 63–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Blanpied PR, Gross AR, Elliott JM, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability and health from the orthopaedic section of the American physical therapy association. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2017; 47(7): A1–A83. Publisher Full Text
5. Sidiq M; Article OSecondary CA et al.: Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Indian language-Hindi version of the Neck Disability index in rural Northern Indian population.2021.
6. Kang H: Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2021; 18: 1–12. Publisher Full Text
7. Skierka AS, Michels KB: Ethical principles and placebo-controlled trials - Interpretation and implementation of the Declaration of Helsinki’s placebo paragraph in medical research. BMC Med. Ethics. 2018; 19(1): 1–12.
8. Patterson SD, Hughes L, Warmington S, et al.: Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety. Front Physiol. 2019 May 15; 10: 533. Erratum in: Front Physiol. 2019 Oct 22; 10: 1332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2023

Author details Author details

Mohammad Sidiq
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Aksh Chahal
Roles: Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Nitesh Bansal
Roles: Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Sajjad Alam
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration

Rituraj Verma
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources

Krishna Reddy Vajrala
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology

Jyoti Sharma
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Sumera Khan
Roles: Investigation, Methodology

Yamini Sharma
Roles: Resources, Software, Supervision

Balamurugan Janakiraman
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Richa Hirendra Rai
Roles: Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Nitesh Malhotra
Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 31 May 2024, 12:1076

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140084.2

version 1

Published: 31 Aug 2023, 12:1076

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140084.1

© 2023 Sidiq M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Sidiq M, Chahal A, Bansal N et al. Effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140084.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 27 May 2024

Yujiro Yamada, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153413.r275252

General Comments:

The authors of the manuscript proposed the study protocol to investigate the effect of adding blood flow restriction (BFR) training to standard physiotherapy care on pressure pain threshold in the neck region and hand function in adults with persistent neck pain, using a randomized controlled trial design. I would think this study idea would add valuable insight into the literature on BFR and pain. However, I have multiple parts that are not clear in the manuscripts, especially in the protocol section. Also, there is a suggestion of using a prospective mediation analysis rather than or in addition to the multiple correlation analysis. I would like the authors to consider these comments and provide revisions or reasonable rebottle accordingly. Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

Comments Specific to Individual Sections:

ABSTRACT

Comments for Authors

It is not clear in the abstract that the BFR training group also will receive standard care, which is an important narrative that needs since BFR training + standard care vs. standard care is different from BFR training vs. standard care.

INTRODUCTION

Comments for Authors

Thank you for the concise introduction.
“…subjecting the body to high-intensity exercises.”
- I would avoid using “high intensity” in the context. It would be rather suitable to use “high-load” since high intensity could also refer to how much “effort” the individuals put in during the exercise (Steele 2014, [Ref 1]). For instance, performing the “low-load resistance exercise” can be a “high-effort” exercise when the exercise is taken near or to momentary failure.
“Despite its application in various musculoskeletal conditions”
- This sentence acknowledges that there are studies examining the effect of BFR training on pain reduction; however, it is unclear whether BFR training worked for these conditions and no citation was provided. For instance, a review article summarized the acute and chronic effects of BFR exercise on pain reduction, and some included studies showed the greater pain-reducing effect of BFR training compared to high-load resistance training in adults after ACL (Song JS, et al., 2021 [Ref 2]). No need to be this paper, but please consider citing a work for this part of the sentence.
I am not sure I understand, but the authors noted that neck pain can result in functional limitations that affect daily activities and work performance. Is there any relationship between neck pain and grip strength at baseline or any evidence or physiological rationale that changing one leads to change in another? If so, the authors could propose to perform mediation analysis, which tests whether the improvement in grip strength occurs through the potential greater pain reduction in BFR training than in standard care. Different from the correlation analysis, this mediation analysis can test the causal relationship by using the rigorous linear regression approach. You might consider this approach and this paper as guidance (Valente MJ, et. al., 2017 [Ref 3])

PROTOCOL

“One hundred and ten self-reporting persistent neck pain…”
- Would the authors consider the number of participants who are screened out due to the exclusion criteria the number of dropouts, or the inability to follow-up? Considering these concerns, would authors be better to shoot for higher than 110 (possibly 120) to have adequate power to detect the moderate effect?
“weak power grip, impaired hand precision function”
- How will the authors determine “weak handgrip, impaired hand function”? Please provide reasonable inclusion criteria for the relatively weak handgrip and function for the target population.
“75 vol LOP 40 5o 50% for upper grip ball exercise (light resistance wrist curls) …
- Please describe the BFR exercise session more precisely and clearly. What does the 75 vol mean? Meaning 4 sets of 30, 15, 15, 15 repetitions? What blood flow restriction device will the author be using? Hokanson? Delfi? Smart cuff? Or other devices? How would you determine limb occlusion pressure (LOP)? How would the authors determine the load for the grip ball exercise? How are the authors performing one repetition maximum (1RM) test on the movement? Only at the first visit? Table 2 will leave me with many questions about the exercise protocol. This table is very similar to Table 1 of Patterson et al. 2019, which is the guideline paper for BFR. Please be specific about the protocol. The load, 20 – 40% 1RM: Does it mean the exercise is going to be progressive from 20 – 40% 1RM? If so, how would the load be progressed (like a 5% increase every other week?). The cuff size: Which cuff would the author use for the exercise, small, medium, or large cuff? The length can differ depending on the size of the participants; however, the cuff width should be consistent since it affects the arterial occlusion pressure and possible discomfort. Repetitions & pressure: please report the number of repetitions completed in each set when reporting the results in the future since some participants might not be able to complete the predetermined repetitions. For pressure, is the author progressing the pressure as well from 40 – 80% AOP? Why does it say AOP but in the text it says LOP? Please be consistent throughout the manuscript. Same as rest periods…, if the author gives the range, please specify whether the rest period would be progressed to be shorter from 60 to 30 seconds or rather specify the rest period. Same comment for the exercise speed.
“Follow up will be done for patients on the second visit after 8 weeks and long term follow up after 6 months for others on phones who fail to come for follow up”
- Please clarify the sentence. Please revise the second visit as a “post-training visit” to avoid confusion from readers. This reads as if the participants cannot come to the post-training visit, they will be followed up by phone after 6 months, which does not make sense to me.
“Each individual will serve as self-control to report about the possible benefit in pain score after receiving BFR and after follow up”
- It is a good idea to report the participants’ expectations about the intervention in both groups at baseline and post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up. But, I don’t think it is correct to say “self-control” in this context. I do not understand how this variable will be used as “self-control.”
Please clarify what parts are supervised and unsupervised in the intervention.
Please give a more specific description of the anatomical points in the neck region or provide a diagram or picture for clarity.
For statistical analysis, the authors may consider reporting the variables as median if the variables are not normally distributed.
As mentioned, in the introduction, mediation analysis could give better insight into the potential relationship between the outcome variables rather than multiple correlation analysis. If the author wants to report the correlation analysis, please specify which variables will be used for the analysis.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Steele J: Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether?. Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48 (22): 1586-8 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Song JS, Spitz RW, Yamada Y, Bell ZW, et al.: Exercise-induced hypoalgesia and pain reduction following blood flow restriction: A brief review.Phys Ther Sport. 2021; 50: 89-96 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Valente MJ, MacKinnon DP: Comparing models of change to estimate the mediated effect in the pretest-posttest control group design.Struct Equ Modeling. 2017; 24 (3): 428-450 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Blood flow restriction, resistance training, pressure pain threshold, blood pressure measurements, strength assessments, ultrasound muscle thickness assessment, and cognitive function assessment.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 16 May 2024

Imam Subadi, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153413.r275253

REVIEW

This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that need to be addressed by the ... Continue reading

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training is not well highlight in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
The reason for choosing the blood floe restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How the disability is measured ?

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ?
In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Intervention : How is the author determine 1 RM?
In table 2 : How is the author determine restriction form continuous or intermittent ?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: wet cupping therapy, pain, stroke

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 21 Jun 2024

Dr Mohammad Sidiq, Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India

21 Jun 2024

Author Response
This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that ... Continue reading
This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that need to be addressed by the authors.

Abstract :
The authors don't need to mention ethical clearance in the abstract
Response: Thank you; changes have been amended accordingly

Introduction:

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training are not well highlighted in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Response; We have now included statements explaining the mechanism and importance of blood flow restriction training as an interventional option for neck pain and hand function.

Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
Response; The following statement is now supplemented in the introduction section: “BFRT procedure paired with low intensity resisted exercise are proposed to cause pain modulation by exercise induced hypoalgesia (EIH) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) pathways by activating descending pain inhibition.”

The reason for choosing the blood flow restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained
Response: We have now included sentence that emphasizes the rationale behind choosing BFRT.

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How is a disability is measured ?
Responses; Yes, true. Now we have removed the disability-related statement from the objective session and replaced it with activities of daily life.

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ? Response: We have decided to include any adult participant who is eligible based on our exclusion criteria and self-reports neck pain, usually due to local musculoskeletal conditions and/or stable degenerative conditions that have led to impaired hand function.

In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Response: Done accordingly

1. How was 1 RM calculated?
Response: Each participant will be asked to perform upper limb exercises with the BFR cuffs on in order to calculate 1RM, and the maximum weight lifted will be noted.

Is the rationale for and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Are there sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format?

Partly
This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that need to be addressed by the authors.

Abstract :
The authors don't need to mention ethical clearance in the abstract
Response: Thank you; changes have been amended accordingly

Introduction:

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training are not well highlighted in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Response; We have now included statements explaining the mechanism and importance of blood flow restriction training as an interventional option for neck pain and hand function.

Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
Response; The following statement is now supplemented in the introduction section: “BFRT procedure paired with low intensity resisted exercise are proposed to cause pain modulation by exercise induced hypoalgesia (EIH) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) pathways by activating descending pain inhibition.”

The reason for choosing the blood flow restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained
Response: We have now included sentence that emphasizes the rationale behind choosing BFRT.

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How is a disability is measured ?
Responses; Yes, true. Now we have removed the disability-related statement from the objective session and replaced it with activities of daily life.

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ? Response: We have decided to include any adult participant who is eligible based on our exclusion criteria and self-reports neck pain, usually due to local musculoskeletal conditions and/or stable degenerative conditions that have led to impaired hand function.

In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Response: Done accordingly

1. How was 1 RM calculated?
Response: Each participant will be asked to perform upper limb exercises with the BFR cuffs on in order to calculate 1RM, and the maximum weight lifted will be noted.

Is the rationale for and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Are there sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format?

Partly
Competing Interests: We declare there is no competing interest. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 21 Jun 2024

Dr Mohammad Sidiq, Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India

21 Jun 2024

Author Response
This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that ... Continue reading
This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that need to be addressed by the authors.

Abstract :
The authors don't need to mention ethical clearance in the abstract
Response: Thank you; changes have been amended accordingly

Introduction:

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training are not well highlighted in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Response; We have now included statements explaining the mechanism and importance of blood flow restriction training as an interventional option for neck pain and hand function.

Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
Response; The following statement is now supplemented in the introduction section: “BFRT procedure paired with low intensity resisted exercise are proposed to cause pain modulation by exercise induced hypoalgesia (EIH) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) pathways by activating descending pain inhibition.”

The reason for choosing the blood flow restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained
Response: We have now included sentence that emphasizes the rationale behind choosing BFRT.

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How is a disability is measured ?
Responses; Yes, true. Now we have removed the disability-related statement from the objective session and replaced it with activities of daily life.

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ? Response: We have decided to include any adult participant who is eligible based on our exclusion criteria and self-reports neck pain, usually due to local musculoskeletal conditions and/or stable degenerative conditions that have led to impaired hand function.

In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Response: Done accordingly

1. How was 1 RM calculated?
Response: Each participant will be asked to perform upper limb exercises with the BFR cuffs on in order to calculate 1RM, and the maximum weight lifted will be noted.

Is the rationale for and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Are there sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format?

Partly
This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that need to be addressed by the authors.

Abstract :
The authors don't need to mention ethical clearance in the abstract
Response: Thank you; changes have been amended accordingly

Introduction:

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training are not well highlighted in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Response; We have now included statements explaining the mechanism and importance of blood flow restriction training as an interventional option for neck pain and hand function.

Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
Response; The following statement is now supplemented in the introduction section: “BFRT procedure paired with low intensity resisted exercise are proposed to cause pain modulation by exercise induced hypoalgesia (EIH) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) pathways by activating descending pain inhibition.”

The reason for choosing the blood flow restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained
Response: We have now included sentence that emphasizes the rationale behind choosing BFRT.

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How is a disability is measured ?
Responses; Yes, true. Now we have removed the disability-related statement from the objective session and replaced it with activities of daily life.

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ? Response: We have decided to include any adult participant who is eligible based on our exclusion criteria and self-reports neck pain, usually due to local musculoskeletal conditions and/or stable degenerative conditions that have led to impaired hand function.

In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Response: Done accordingly

1. How was 1 RM calculated?
Response: Each participant will be asked to perform upper limb exercises with the BFR cuffs on in order to calculate 1RM, and the maximum weight lifted will be noted.

Is the rationale for and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Are there sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format?

Partly
Competing Interests: We declare there is no competing interest. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Nov 2023

Aminu A Ibrahim, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Skyline University Nigeria, Kano, Nigeria

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153413.r222257

General comments:

The manuscript aims to investigate the potential benefits of Blood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) as a treatment intervention for persistent neck pain. The authors need to revise the entire manuscript for grammar and technicalities. I ... Continue reading

Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’
The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract
110 patients should be written in words
In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section
The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Introduction, objectives, and hypotheses

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit
The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense
The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks
Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above
The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.
Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.
The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported
I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.
Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Musculoskeltal disorders, clinical epidemiology, cross-cultural research

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 31 May 2024

Dr Mohammad Sidiq, Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India

31 May 2024

Author Response
Methodology
1. The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above
... Continue reading
Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Reviewer Comments:
Author Responses:

Abstract

1.Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’

2.The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract

3.110 patients should be written in words

4.In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section

5.The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Background: Persistent neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition that affects the quality of life and functional abilities of individuals. Blood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) is a novel therapeutic approach that involves restricting blood flow to exercising muscles to enhance strength and function. However, limited research has been conducted on the effects of BFRT on pressure pain threshold and hand function in adults with persistent neck pain. This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the potential benefits of BFRT as a treatment intervention for this population.
Methods: This study will be a prospective parallel group active controlled trail to be conducted at Physiotherapy Department, Galgotias University. Ethical clearance has been obtained from Departmental Ethics Committee on 19/05/2023 with reference number DEC/PT/GU/2023 and the Trial has been registered with Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2023/06/053439. One hundred and ten patients with persistent neck pain will be randomly allocated into two groups. The BFRT group will receive supervised training sessions three times a week for eight weeks, performing low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction applied using personalized cuff pressure. The control group will receive standard care for neck pain, which may include general advice, manual therapy, and/or home exercises without BFRT. The primary outcome measures will be the pressure pain threshold, assessed using a pressure Algometer, and hand function, evaluated using standardized tests such as Hand Grip Strength and Purdue Peg board Test.
Conclusion: This study aims to provide significant insights into the potential advantages of BFR training for enhancing pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults experiencing persistent neck pain.

Methodology

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit

Recent research has offered insights indicating that both low-load training until volitional fatigue and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training have the potential to induce muscle size gains comparable to high-load training.

The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding our focus on highlighting the potential benefits of the new intervention in comparison to standard care. We acknowledge the importance of addressing this concern and will make sure to provide a more balanced discussion in our revised manuscript. We will include a more comprehensive analysis that considers the effectiveness of both the new intervention and standard care to ensure a thorough and well-rounded presentation of our findings.

This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense

The results obtained from this research might hold the potential to inform healthcare practitioners, physiotherapists, and other relevant professionals about the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating BFR training into the management strategies for individuals with persistent neck pain.

The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
Revised Objectives are
To evaluate the potential effect of BFRT in alleviating neck pain and improving the hand function among adults with persistent neck pain.
To study the impact of BFRT on disability and quality of life among patients with persistent neck pain
To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain.

I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks

We have revised the outcomes at four weeks and a follow up after twelve weeks.

Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Revised Hypotheses are as under

BFRT might have a significant impact in reducing pressure pain threshold and improving hand function in patients with persistent neck pain among adults.

BFRT will demonstrate a statistically significant increase in pressure pain threshold and improvement in hand function compared to a control group receiving standard care.

To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term; this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The short term follow up will be done after 6 months due to feasibility constraints and social factors of participants.

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

To ensure equal allocation across group’s overtime, a block randomization with the block size of 8 will be used.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Yes we agree, thank you

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify
Assuming that BFRT might have an medium effect on the variable pressure pain threshold, the Cohen’s d effect of 0.5 for medium effect was used.

Sample size was calculated for the variable pressure pain threshold assessed by algometer using G power version 3.1.9.4 for Windows. A priori power analysis with the assumed Cohen’s d medium effect size of 0.5, with the margin of error (α) to test the level of significance, power of study (1 – β) was set at 80%, and the confidence interval at 95%. Assuming a drop out of up to 10%, a target sample of n= 112 was estimated.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

The hand-held algometer demonstrated a reliability of r 0.990[Bala J1] for average force application of 80 Newton’s. and the Jamar hand-held dynamometer showed a reliability of 0.94[Bala J2] .

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Since, one of the sub-domain of the Neck Outcome Score (NOOS) measure the pain intensity, we thought that would address the self-reported pain intensity.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

The Neck Outcome score (NOOS) subscales was reported to have a good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.88 – 0.95[Bala J3] ) among participants with neck pain. Further, NOOS was found to have a minimal detectable changes ranging between 1.1 and 1.9. The WHO-5 wellbeing index showed an acceptable internal consistency of 0.79 among Indian adults[Bala J4] .

Kinser, Ann M¹; Sands, William A¹; Stone, Michael H². Reliability and Validity of a Pressure Algometer. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(1):p 312-314, January 2009. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818f051c

Benton MJ, Spicher JM, Silva-Smith AL. Validity and reliability of handgrip dynamometry in older adults: A comparison of two widely used dynamometers. Plos one. 2022 Jun 21;17(6):e0270132.

Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form–36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Nov 1;79:31-40.

Pattnaik P. Validation of the World Health Organisation 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) among the Adult Population Living in a Chronically Arsenic Affected Area of Rural West Bengal in India. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2020 Mar 1;11(3).
Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Reviewer Comments:
Author Responses:

Abstract

1.Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’

2.The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract

3.110 patients should be written in words

4.In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section

5.The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Background: Persistent neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition that affects the quality of life and functional abilities of individuals. Blood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) is a novel therapeutic approach that involves restricting blood flow to exercising muscles to enhance strength and function. However, limited research has been conducted on the effects of BFRT on pressure pain threshold and hand function in adults with persistent neck pain. This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the potential benefits of BFRT as a treatment intervention for this population.
Methods: This study will be a prospective parallel group active controlled trail to be conducted at Physiotherapy Department, Galgotias University. Ethical clearance has been obtained from Departmental Ethics Committee on 19/05/2023 with reference number DEC/PT/GU/2023 and the Trial has been registered with Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2023/06/053439. One hundred and ten patients with persistent neck pain will be randomly allocated into two groups. The BFRT group will receive supervised training sessions three times a week for eight weeks, performing low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction applied using personalized cuff pressure. The control group will receive standard care for neck pain, which may include general advice, manual therapy, and/or home exercises without BFRT. The primary outcome measures will be the pressure pain threshold, assessed using a pressure Algometer, and hand function, evaluated using standardized tests such as Hand Grip Strength and Purdue Peg board Test.
Conclusion: This study aims to provide significant insights into the potential advantages of BFR training for enhancing pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults experiencing persistent neck pain.

Methodology

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit

Recent research has offered insights indicating that both low-load training until volitional fatigue and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training have the potential to induce muscle size gains comparable to high-load training.

The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding our focus on highlighting the potential benefits of the new intervention in comparison to standard care. We acknowledge the importance of addressing this concern and will make sure to provide a more balanced discussion in our revised manuscript. We will include a more comprehensive analysis that considers the effectiveness of both the new intervention and standard care to ensure a thorough and well-rounded presentation of our findings.

This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense

The results obtained from this research might hold the potential to inform healthcare practitioners, physiotherapists, and other relevant professionals about the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating BFR training into the management strategies for individuals with persistent neck pain.

The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
Revised Objectives are
To evaluate the potential effect of BFRT in alleviating neck pain and improving the hand function among adults with persistent neck pain.
To study the impact of BFRT on disability and quality of life among patients with persistent neck pain
To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain.

I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks

We have revised the outcomes at four weeks and a follow up after twelve weeks.

Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Revised Hypotheses are as under

BFRT might have a significant impact in reducing pressure pain threshold and improving hand function in patients with persistent neck pain among adults.

BFRT will demonstrate a statistically significant increase in pressure pain threshold and improvement in hand function compared to a control group receiving standard care.

To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term; this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The short term follow up will be done after 6 months due to feasibility constraints and social factors of participants.

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

To ensure equal allocation across group’s overtime, a block randomization with the block size of 8 will be used.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Yes we agree, thank you

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify
Assuming that BFRT might have an medium effect on the variable pressure pain threshold, the Cohen’s d effect of 0.5 for medium effect was used.

Sample size was calculated for the variable pressure pain threshold assessed by algometer using G power version 3.1.9.4 for Windows. A priori power analysis with the assumed Cohen’s d medium effect size of 0.5, with the margin of error (α) to test the level of significance, power of study (1 – β) was set at 80%, and the confidence interval at 95%. Assuming a drop out of up to 10%, a target sample of n= 112 was estimated.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

The hand-held algometer demonstrated a reliability of r 0.990[Bala J1] for average force application of 80 Newton’s. and the Jamar hand-held dynamometer showed a reliability of 0.94[Bala J2] .

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Since, one of the sub-domain of the Neck Outcome Score (NOOS) measure the pain intensity, we thought that would address the self-reported pain intensity.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

The Neck Outcome score (NOOS) subscales was reported to have a good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.88 – 0.95[Bala J3] ) among participants with neck pain. Further, NOOS was found to have a minimal detectable changes ranging between 1.1 and 1.9. The WHO-5 wellbeing index showed an acceptable internal consistency of 0.79 among Indian adults[Bala J4] .

Kinser, Ann M¹; Sands, William A¹; Stone, Michael H². Reliability and Validity of a Pressure Algometer. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(1):p 312-314, January 2009. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818f051c

Benton MJ, Spicher JM, Silva-Smith AL. Validity and reliability of handgrip dynamometry in older adults: A comparison of two widely used dynamometers. Plos one. 2022 Jun 21;17(6):e0270132.

Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form–36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Nov 1;79:31-40.

Pattnaik P. Validation of the World Health Organisation 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) among the Adult Population Living in a Chronically Arsenic Affected Area of Rural West Bengal in India. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2020 Mar 1;11(3).
Competing Interests: Authors declare no conflict of interest. Close
Report a concern
Reviewer Response 14 Jun 2024

Priyanshu Rathod, RK University, Rajkot, India

14 Jun 2024

Reviewer Response

accepted
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
accepted
accepted
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Reviewer Response 18 Jun 2024

Priyanshu Rathod, RK University, Rajkot, India

18 Jun 2024

Reviewer Response

satisfactory
Competing Interests: satisfactory
satisfactory
satisfactory
Competing Interests: satisfactory Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 31 May 2024

Dr Mohammad Sidiq, Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India

31 May 2024

Author Response
Methodology
1. The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above
... Continue reading
Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Reviewer Comments:
Author Responses:

Abstract

1.Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’

2.The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract

3.110 patients should be written in words

4.In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section

5.The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Background: Persistent neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition that affects the quality of life and functional abilities of individuals. Blood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) is a novel therapeutic approach that involves restricting blood flow to exercising muscles to enhance strength and function. However, limited research has been conducted on the effects of BFRT on pressure pain threshold and hand function in adults with persistent neck pain. This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the potential benefits of BFRT as a treatment intervention for this population.
Methods: This study will be a prospective parallel group active controlled trail to be conducted at Physiotherapy Department, Galgotias University. Ethical clearance has been obtained from Departmental Ethics Committee on 19/05/2023 with reference number DEC/PT/GU/2023 and the Trial has been registered with Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2023/06/053439. One hundred and ten patients with persistent neck pain will be randomly allocated into two groups. The BFRT group will receive supervised training sessions three times a week for eight weeks, performing low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction applied using personalized cuff pressure. The control group will receive standard care for neck pain, which may include general advice, manual therapy, and/or home exercises without BFRT. The primary outcome measures will be the pressure pain threshold, assessed using a pressure Algometer, and hand function, evaluated using standardized tests such as Hand Grip Strength and Purdue Peg board Test.
Conclusion: This study aims to provide significant insights into the potential advantages of BFR training for enhancing pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults experiencing persistent neck pain.

Methodology

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit

Recent research has offered insights indicating that both low-load training until volitional fatigue and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training have the potential to induce muscle size gains comparable to high-load training.

The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding our focus on highlighting the potential benefits of the new intervention in comparison to standard care. We acknowledge the importance of addressing this concern and will make sure to provide a more balanced discussion in our revised manuscript. We will include a more comprehensive analysis that considers the effectiveness of both the new intervention and standard care to ensure a thorough and well-rounded presentation of our findings.

This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense

The results obtained from this research might hold the potential to inform healthcare practitioners, physiotherapists, and other relevant professionals about the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating BFR training into the management strategies for individuals with persistent neck pain.

The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
Revised Objectives are
To evaluate the potential effect of BFRT in alleviating neck pain and improving the hand function among adults with persistent neck pain.
To study the impact of BFRT on disability and quality of life among patients with persistent neck pain
To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain.

I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks

We have revised the outcomes at four weeks and a follow up after twelve weeks.

Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Revised Hypotheses are as under

BFRT might have a significant impact in reducing pressure pain threshold and improving hand function in patients with persistent neck pain among adults.

BFRT will demonstrate a statistically significant increase in pressure pain threshold and improvement in hand function compared to a control group receiving standard care.

To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term; this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The short term follow up will be done after 6 months due to feasibility constraints and social factors of participants.

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

To ensure equal allocation across group’s overtime, a block randomization with the block size of 8 will be used.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Yes we agree, thank you

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify
Assuming that BFRT might have an medium effect on the variable pressure pain threshold, the Cohen’s d effect of 0.5 for medium effect was used.

Sample size was calculated for the variable pressure pain threshold assessed by algometer using G power version 3.1.9.4 for Windows. A priori power analysis with the assumed Cohen’s d medium effect size of 0.5, with the margin of error (α) to test the level of significance, power of study (1 – β) was set at 80%, and the confidence interval at 95%. Assuming a drop out of up to 10%, a target sample of n= 112 was estimated.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

The hand-held algometer demonstrated a reliability of r 0.990[Bala J1] for average force application of 80 Newton’s. and the Jamar hand-held dynamometer showed a reliability of 0.94[Bala J2] .

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Since, one of the sub-domain of the Neck Outcome Score (NOOS) measure the pain intensity, we thought that would address the self-reported pain intensity.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

The Neck Outcome score (NOOS) subscales was reported to have a good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.88 – 0.95[Bala J3] ) among participants with neck pain. Further, NOOS was found to have a minimal detectable changes ranging between 1.1 and 1.9. The WHO-5 wellbeing index showed an acceptable internal consistency of 0.79 among Indian adults[Bala J4] .

Kinser, Ann M¹; Sands, William A¹; Stone, Michael H². Reliability and Validity of a Pressure Algometer. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(1):p 312-314, January 2009. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818f051c

Benton MJ, Spicher JM, Silva-Smith AL. Validity and reliability of handgrip dynamometry in older adults: A comparison of two widely used dynamometers. Plos one. 2022 Jun 21;17(6):e0270132.

Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form–36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Nov 1;79:31-40.

Pattnaik P. Validation of the World Health Organisation 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) among the Adult Population Living in a Chronically Arsenic Affected Area of Rural West Bengal in India. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2020 Mar 1;11(3).
Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Reviewer Comments:
Author Responses:

Abstract

1.Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’

2.The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract

3.110 patients should be written in words

4.In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section

5.The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Background: Persistent neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition that affects the quality of life and functional abilities of individuals. Blood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) is a novel therapeutic approach that involves restricting blood flow to exercising muscles to enhance strength and function. However, limited research has been conducted on the effects of BFRT on pressure pain threshold and hand function in adults with persistent neck pain. This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the potential benefits of BFRT as a treatment intervention for this population.
Methods: This study will be a prospective parallel group active controlled trail to be conducted at Physiotherapy Department, Galgotias University. Ethical clearance has been obtained from Departmental Ethics Committee on 19/05/2023 with reference number DEC/PT/GU/2023 and the Trial has been registered with Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2023/06/053439. One hundred and ten patients with persistent neck pain will be randomly allocated into two groups. The BFRT group will receive supervised training sessions three times a week for eight weeks, performing low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction applied using personalized cuff pressure. The control group will receive standard care for neck pain, which may include general advice, manual therapy, and/or home exercises without BFRT. The primary outcome measures will be the pressure pain threshold, assessed using a pressure Algometer, and hand function, evaluated using standardized tests such as Hand Grip Strength and Purdue Peg board Test.
Conclusion: This study aims to provide significant insights into the potential advantages of BFR training for enhancing pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults experiencing persistent neck pain.

Methodology

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit

Recent research has offered insights indicating that both low-load training until volitional fatigue and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training have the potential to induce muscle size gains comparable to high-load training.

The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding our focus on highlighting the potential benefits of the new intervention in comparison to standard care. We acknowledge the importance of addressing this concern and will make sure to provide a more balanced discussion in our revised manuscript. We will include a more comprehensive analysis that considers the effectiveness of both the new intervention and standard care to ensure a thorough and well-rounded presentation of our findings.

This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense

The results obtained from this research might hold the potential to inform healthcare practitioners, physiotherapists, and other relevant professionals about the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating BFR training into the management strategies for individuals with persistent neck pain.

The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
Revised Objectives are
To evaluate the potential effect of BFRT in alleviating neck pain and improving the hand function among adults with persistent neck pain.
To study the impact of BFRT on disability and quality of life among patients with persistent neck pain
To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain.

I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks

We have revised the outcomes at four weeks and a follow up after twelve weeks.

Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Revised Hypotheses are as under

BFRT might have a significant impact in reducing pressure pain threshold and improving hand function in patients with persistent neck pain among adults.

BFRT will demonstrate a statistically significant increase in pressure pain threshold and improvement in hand function compared to a control group receiving standard care.

To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term; this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The short term follow up will be done after 6 months due to feasibility constraints and social factors of participants.

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

To ensure equal allocation across group’s overtime, a block randomization with the block size of 8 will be used.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Yes we agree, thank you

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify
Assuming that BFRT might have an medium effect on the variable pressure pain threshold, the Cohen’s d effect of 0.5 for medium effect was used.

Sample size was calculated for the variable pressure pain threshold assessed by algometer using G power version 3.1.9.4 for Windows. A priori power analysis with the assumed Cohen’s d medium effect size of 0.5, with the margin of error (α) to test the level of significance, power of study (1 – β) was set at 80%, and the confidence interval at 95%. Assuming a drop out of up to 10%, a target sample of n= 112 was estimated.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

The hand-held algometer demonstrated a reliability of r 0.990[Bala J1] for average force application of 80 Newton’s. and the Jamar hand-held dynamometer showed a reliability of 0.94[Bala J2] .

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Since, one of the sub-domain of the Neck Outcome Score (NOOS) measure the pain intensity, we thought that would address the self-reported pain intensity.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

The Neck Outcome score (NOOS) subscales was reported to have a good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.88 – 0.95[Bala J3] ) among participants with neck pain. Further, NOOS was found to have a minimal detectable changes ranging between 1.1 and 1.9. The WHO-5 wellbeing index showed an acceptable internal consistency of 0.79 among Indian adults[Bala J4] .

Kinser, Ann M¹; Sands, William A¹; Stone, Michael H². Reliability and Validity of a Pressure Algometer. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(1):p 312-314, January 2009. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818f051c

Benton MJ, Spicher JM, Silva-Smith AL. Validity and reliability of handgrip dynamometry in older adults: A comparison of two widely used dynamometers. Plos one. 2022 Jun 21;17(6):e0270132.

Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form–36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Nov 1;79:31-40.

Pattnaik P. Validation of the World Health Organisation 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) among the Adult Population Living in a Chronically Arsenic Affected Area of Rural West Bengal in India. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2020 Mar 1;11(3).
Competing Interests: Authors declare no conflict of interest. Close
Report a concern
Reviewer Response 14 Jun 2024

Priyanshu Rathod, RK University, Rajkot, India

14 Jun 2024

Reviewer Response

accepted
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
accepted
accepted
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Reviewer Response 18 Jun 2024

Priyanshu Rathod, RK University, Rajkot, India

18 Jun 2024

Reviewer Response

satisfactory
Competing Interests: satisfactory
satisfactory
satisfactory
Competing Interests: satisfactory Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 31 May 24		read	read
Version 1 31 Aug 23	read	read	read

Aminu A Ibrahim, Skyline University Nigeria, Kano, Nigeria
Imam Subadi, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
Yujiro Yamada, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

10 Jun 2024 | for Version 2

Yujiro Yamada, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Once again, thank you for choosing me as a reviewer for this manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort that the authors put into revising the manuscript.

The introduction has improved from the first draft by addressing other reviewer's comments; however, there are still many ambiguities in the method and statistical analyses, which I have mentioned in the initial comments. Please consider addressing my comments and provide revisions as needed. I would also appreciate it if authors could provide rebuttals to any of my comments which are not sufficient enough to address. Please let me know if my initial comments are not clear. I am happy to reiterate the sentences.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Blood flow restriction, resistance training, pressure pain threshold, blood pressure measurements, strength assessments, ultrasound muscle thickness assessment, and cognitive function assessment.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

03 Jun 2024 | for Version 2

Imam Subadi, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

I'd like to thank the author and team for the considerable effort and attention to detail put into revising this manuscript following the initial review.
The clarity of arguments, methodology, and overall presentation have markedly improved.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

wet cupping therapy, pain, stroke

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

27 May 2024 | for Version 1

Yujiro Yamada, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

9 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

It is not clear in the abstract that the BFR training group also will receive standard care, which is an important narrative that needs since BFR training + standard care vs. standard care is different from BFR training vs. standard care.

INTRODUCTION

Comments for Authors

Thank you for the concise introduction.
“…subjecting the body to high-intensity exercises.”
- I would avoid using “high intensity” in the context. It would be rather suitable to use “high-load” since high intensity could also refer to how much “effort” the individuals put in during the exercise (Steele 2014, [Ref 1]). For instance, performing the “low-load resistance exercise” can be a “high-effort” exercise when the exercise is taken near or to momentary failure.
“Despite its application in various musculoskeletal conditions”
- This sentence acknowledges that there are studies examining the effect of BFR training on pain reduction; however, it is unclear whether BFR training worked for these conditions and no citation was provided. For instance, a review article summarized the acute and chronic effects of BFR exercise on pain reduction, and some included studies showed the greater pain-reducing effect of BFR training compared to high-load resistance training in adults after ACL (Song JS, et al., 2021 [Ref 2]). No need to be this paper, but please consider citing a work for this part of the sentence.
I am not sure I understand, but the authors noted that neck pain can result in functional limitations that affect daily activities and work performance. Is there any relationship between neck pain and grip strength at baseline or any evidence or physiological rationale that changing one leads to change in another? If so, the authors could propose to perform mediation analysis, which tests whether the improvement in grip strength occurs through the potential greater pain reduction in BFR training than in standard care. Different from the correlation analysis, this mediation analysis can test the causal relationship by using the rigorous linear regression approach. You might consider this approach and this paper as guidance (Valente MJ, et. al., 2017 [Ref 3])

PROTOCOL

“One hundred and ten self-reporting persistent neck pain…”
- Would the authors consider the number of participants who are screened out due to the exclusion criteria the number of dropouts, or the inability to follow-up? Considering these concerns, would authors be better to shoot for higher than 110 (possibly 120) to have adequate power to detect the moderate effect?
“weak power grip, impaired hand precision function”
- How will the authors determine “weak handgrip, impaired hand function”? Please provide reasonable inclusion criteria for the relatively weak handgrip and function for the target population.
“75 vol LOP 40 5o 50% for upper grip ball exercise (light resistance wrist curls) …
- Please describe the BFR exercise session more precisely and clearly. What does the 75 vol mean? Meaning 4 sets of 30, 15, 15, 15 repetitions? What blood flow restriction device will the author be using? Hokanson? Delfi? Smart cuff? Or other devices? How would you determine limb occlusion pressure (LOP)? How would the authors determine the load for the grip ball exercise? How are the authors performing one repetition maximum (1RM) test on the movement? Only at the first visit? Table 2 will leave me with many questions about the exercise protocol. This table is very similar to Table 1 of Patterson et al. 2019, which is the guideline paper for BFR. Please be specific about the protocol. The load, 20 – 40% 1RM: Does it mean the exercise is going to be progressive from 20 – 40% 1RM? If so, how would the load be progressed (like a 5% increase every other week?). The cuff size: Which cuff would the author use for the exercise, small, medium, or large cuff? The length can differ depending on the size of the participants; however, the cuff width should be consistent since it affects the arterial occlusion pressure and possible discomfort. Repetitions & pressure: please report the number of repetitions completed in each set when reporting the results in the future since some participants might not be able to complete the predetermined repetitions. For pressure, is the author progressing the pressure as well from 40 – 80% AOP? Why does it say AOP but in the text it says LOP? Please be consistent throughout the manuscript. Same as rest periods…, if the author gives the range, please specify whether the rest period would be progressed to be shorter from 60 to 30 seconds or rather specify the rest period. Same comment for the exercise speed.
“Follow up will be done for patients on the second visit after 8 weeks and long term follow up after 6 months for others on phones who fail to come for follow up”
- Please clarify the sentence. Please revise the second visit as a “post-training visit” to avoid confusion from readers. This reads as if the participants cannot come to the post-training visit, they will be followed up by phone after 6 months, which does not make sense to me.
“Each individual will serve as self-control to report about the possible benefit in pain score after receiving BFR and after follow up”
- It is a good idea to report the participants’ expectations about the intervention in both groups at baseline and post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up. But, I don’t think it is correct to say “self-control” in this context. I do not understand how this variable will be used as “self-control.”
Please clarify what parts are supervised and unsupervised in the intervention.
Please give a more specific description of the anatomical points in the neck region or provide a diagram or picture for clarity.
For statistical analysis, the authors may consider reporting the variables as median if the variables are not normally distributed.
As mentioned, in the introduction, mediation analysis could give better insight into the potential relationship between the outcome variables rather than multiple correlation analysis. If the author wants to report the correlation analysis, please specify which variables will be used for the analysis.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Blood flow restriction, resistance training, pressure pain threshold, blood pressure measurements, strength assessments, ultrasound muscle thickness assessment, and cognitive function assessment.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

16 May 2024 | for Version 1

Imam Subadi, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training is not well highlight in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
The reason for choosing the blood floe restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How the disability is measured ?

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ?
In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Intervention : How is the author determine 1 RM?
In table 2 : How is the author determine restriction form continuous or intermittent ?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

wet cupping therapy, pain, stroke

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

21 Jun 2024

Dr Mohammad Sidiq, Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India

This paper aimed to evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain. There are major concerns that need to be addressed by the authors.

Abstract :
The authors don't need to mention ethical clearance in the abstract
Response: Thank you; changes have been amended accordingly

Introduction:

The importance, role and mechanism of blood flow restriction training are not well highlighted in this section as a therapeutic potential in neck pain and hand function
Response; We have now included statements explaining the mechanism and importance of blood flow restriction training as an interventional option for neck pain and hand function.
Which part of the pain pathway is targeting ?
Response; The following statement is now supplemented in the introduction section: “BFRT procedure paired with low intensity resisted exercise are proposed to cause pain modulation by exercise induced hypoalgesia (EIH) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) pathways by activating descending pain inhibition.”
The reason for choosing the blood flow restriction training to reduce pain and increase hand function is not well explained
Response: We have now included sentence that emphasizes the rationale behind choosing BFRT.

Objective :
The objective of the study must be inline with the title. The author mentioned the impact of BRT on disability. How is a disability is measured ?
Responses; Yes, true. Now we have removed the disability-related statement from the objective session and replaced it with activities of daily life.

Methods

The determination of the diagnosis is not clear ? Who diagnosed the patients ? Response: We have decided to include any adult participant who is eligible based on our exclusion criteria and self-reports neck pain, usually due to local musculoskeletal conditions and/or stable degenerative conditions that have led to impaired hand function.
In table 1, the author must be explain the abbreviations
Response: Done accordingly
1. How was 1 RM calculated?
Response: Each participant will be asked to perform upper limb exercises with the BFR cuffs on in order to calculate 1RM, and the maximum weight lifted will be noted.

Is the rationale for and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Are there sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format?

Partly

View more View less

Competing Interests

We declare there is no competing interest.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

43 Views

15 Nov 2023 | for Version 1

Aminu A Ibrahim, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Skyline University Nigeria, Kano, Nigeria

43 Views Cite this report Responses(3)

Approved With Reservations

Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’
The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract
110 patients should be written in words
In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section
The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Introduction, objectives, and hypotheses

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit
The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense
The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks
Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above
The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.
Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.
The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported
I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.
Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Musculoskeltal disorders, clinical epidemiology, cross-cultural research

Respond to this report

Responses (3)

Author Response

31 May 2024

Dr Mohammad Sidiq, Department of Physiotherapy, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term, this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above
The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.
Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify.
The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported
I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.
Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

Reviewer Comments:
Author Responses:

Abstract

1.Under methods, replace done with ‘ to be conducted’
2.The authors don’t need to mention informed consent in the abstract
3.110 patients should be written in words
4.In reporting study protocol, no need to have a results section
5.The conclusion should be revised for grammar.

Background: Persistent neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition that affects the quality of life and functional abilities of individuals. Blood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) is a novel therapeutic approach that involves restricting blood flow to exercising muscles to enhance strength and function. However, limited research has been conducted on the effects of BFRT on pressure pain threshold and hand function in adults with persistent neck pain. This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the potential benefits of BFRT as a treatment intervention for this population.
Methods: This study will be a prospective parallel group active controlled trail to be conducted at Physiotherapy Department, Galgotias University. Ethical clearance has been obtained from Departmental Ethics Committee on 19/05/2023 with reference number DEC/PT/GU/2023 and the Trial has been registered with Clinical Trial Registry India CTRI/2023/06/053439. One hundred and ten patients with persistent neck pain will be randomly allocated into two groups. The BFRT group will receive supervised training sessions three times a week for eight weeks, performing low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction applied using personalized cuff pressure. The control group will receive standard care for neck pain, which may include general advice, manual therapy, and/or home exercises without BFRT. The primary outcome measures will be the pressure pain threshold, assessed using a pressure Algometer, and hand function, evaluated using standardized tests such as Hand Grip Strength and Purdue Peg board Test.
Conclusion: This study aims to provide significant insights into the potential advantages of BFR training for enhancing pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults experiencing persistent neck pain.

Methodology

The rationale for evaluating BFR training for neck needs to be more explicit

Recent research has offered insights indicating that both low-load training until volitional fatigue and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training have the potential to induce muscle size gains comparable to high-load training.

The authors focused more on highlighting the potential benefit of the new intervention, which could turn out to be as effective as the standard care.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding our focus on highlighting the potential benefits of the new intervention in comparison to standard care. We acknowledge the importance of addressing this concern and will make sure to provide a more balanced discussion in our revised manuscript. We will include a more comprehensive analysis that considers the effectiveness of both the new intervention and standard care to ensure a thorough and well-rounded presentation of our findings.

This is a protocol, the write-up should be presented in the future tense

The results obtained from this research might hold the potential to inform healthcare practitioners, physiotherapists, and other relevant professionals about the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating BFR training into the management strategies for individuals with persistent neck pain.

The objectives are not clearly outlined. What about the comparison between the BFR training and standard care? The authors mentioned long-term, what about short-term?
Revised Objectives are
To evaluate the potential effect of BFRT in alleviating neck pain and improving the hand function among adults with persistent neck pain.
To study the impact of BFRT on disability and quality of life among patients with persistent neck pain
To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain.

I would also advise the authors to evaluate outcomes at 4 weeks

We have revised the outcomes at four weeks and a follow up after twelve weeks.

Hypotheses are not well constructed and no need to add the null hypothesis in the article write-up. The heading should just read "Hypotheses" The hypotheses should indicate the comparison between the groups.

Revised Hypotheses are as under

BFRT might have a significant impact in reducing pressure pain threshold and improving hand function in patients with persistent neck pain among adults.
BFRT will demonstrate a statistically significant increase in pressure pain threshold and improvement in hand function compared to a control group receiving standard care.
To study the short-term effect of BFRT on Precision and Power grip among adults with Persistent neck pain

Methodology

The authors mentioned 6 months as long term; this is often considered to be intermediate term. Long-term periods typically involved 12 months or 1 year or above

The short term follow up will be done after 6 months due to feasibility constraints and social factors of participants.

The authors mentioned that participants will be assigned into two groups equally but the type of randomization to achieve this equal allocation (i.e. block randomization with the block sizes) is not mentioned.

To ensure equal allocation across group’s overtime, a block randomization with the block size of 8 will be used.

Figures 1 and 2 for sample size calculations are not needed. Please consider deleting
Yes we agree, thank you

Why was the effect size of 0.50 selected? The authors have not made it clear if the primary outcome - pressure pain threshold or hand function has been used in the determination of effect size assumptions. Please clarify
Assuming that BFRT might have an medium effect on the variable pressure pain threshold, the Cohen’s d effect of 0.5 for medium effect was used.

Sample size was calculated for the variable pressure pain threshold assessed by algometer using G power version 3.1.9.4 for Windows. A priori power analysis with the assumed Cohen’s d medium effect size of 0.5, with the margin of error (α) to test the level of significance, power of study (1 – β) was set at 80%, and the confidence interval at 95%. Assuming a drop out of up to 10%, a target sample of n= 112 was estimated.

The reliability of using Algometer for measuring Pressure pain threshold and a hand help dynamometer for measuring hand function should be reported

The hand-held algometer demonstrated a reliability of r 0.990[Bala J1] for average force application of 80 Newton’s. and the Jamar hand-held dynamometer showed a reliability of 0.94[Bala J2] .

I suggest the authors should also evaluate the intensity of neck pain using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale.

Since, one of the sub-domain of the Neck Outcome Score (NOOS) measure the pain intensity, we thought that would address the self-reported pain intensity.

Reliability (ICC and Cronbach’s alpha) and validity for the Neck Outcome Score (NOS) and WHO-5 quality of life index questionnaire should be briefly reported.

The Neck Outcome score (NOOS) subscales was reported to have a good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.88 – 0.95[Bala J3] ) among participants with neck pain. Further, NOOS was found to have a minimal detectable changes ranging between 1.1 and 1.9. The WHO-5 wellbeing index showed an acceptable internal consistency of 0.79 among Indian adults[Bala J4] .

Kinser, Ann M¹; Sands, William A¹; Stone, Michael H². Reliability and Validity of a Pressure Algometer. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(1):p 312-314, January 2009. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818f051c

Benton MJ, Spicher JM, Silva-Smith AL. Validity and reliability of handgrip dynamometry in older adults: A comparison of two widely used dynamometers. Plos one. 2022 Jun 21;17(6):e0270132.

Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form–36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Nov 1;79:31-40.

Pattnaik P. Validation of the World Health Organisation 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) among the Adult Population Living in a Chronically Arsenic Affected Area of Rural West Bengal in India. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2020 Mar 1;11(3).

View more View less

Competing Interests

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Woolf AD, Erwin J, March L: The need to address the burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2012; 26(2): 183–224. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, et al.: The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population: A population-based cohort study. Pain. 2004; 112(3): 267–273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Saraf A, Goyal M, Goyal K: Blood Flow Restriction Training-An Overview and Implication in New Generation Physical Therapy: A Narrative Review. J. Lifestyle Med. 2022; 12(2): 63–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Blanpied PR, Gross AR, Elliott JM, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability and health from the orthopaedic section of the American physical therapy association. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2017; 47(7): A1–A83. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Sidiq M; Article OSecondary CA et al.: Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Indian language-Hindi version of the Neck Disability index in rural Northern Indian population.2021.

[6] 6. Kang H: Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2021; 18: 1–12. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Skierka AS, Michels KB: Ethical principles and placebo-controlled trials - Interpretation and implementation of the Declaration of Helsinki’s placebo paragraph in medical research. BMC Med. Ethics. 2018; 19(1): 1–12.

[8] 8. Patterson SD, Hughes L, Warmington S, et al.: Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety. Front Physiol. 2019 May 15; 10: 533. Erratum in: Front Physiol. 2019 Oct 22; 10: 1332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Effect of blood flow restriction training on pressure pain threshold and hand function among adults with persistent neck pain: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Objectives

Protocol

Study design

Null hypothesis

Alternate hypothesis

Figure 1. Plot describing the total sample size with power (1-β).

Figure 2. Plot showing central and non-central distributions.

Eligibility criteria

Exclusion criteria

Methods

Table 1. Schedule of enrolment, Intervention, and assessment, the SPIRIT guidelines.

Intervention

Table 2. Protocol of BFR.

Outcome measures

Statistical analysis

Discussion

Social and research benefit

Data availability

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated