All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors, I herewith confirm the acceptance of your paper in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No further comment.
No further comment.
No further comment.
.
.
.
The authors carefully addressed the issues that reviewers pointed out, including the abstract, introduction, methods and conclusion. Crucial and carefull changes have been made to the article to add everything that reviewers have commented on. All of the suggestions were addressed in the light shed by the reviews.
No comment
Suggested changes have been made.
Suggested changes have been made.
Deae authors,
Please make corrections as suggested by the reviewers and provide a detailed rebuttal on a point-by-point basis.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The article is very well-written and presented, with a thorough description of the used methodology. The topic is relevant, timely and interesting.
I have a few minor suggestions:
1. consider replacing the term ‘elderly’ with ‘older adult’ or similar, throughout the text, since the term ‘elderly’ is now considered ageist (for reference, please see: https://journals.lww.com/jgpt/fulltext/2011/10000/use_of_the_term__elderly_.1.aspx)
2. I suggest writing again both the full words and their abbreviations (for exercise types and vascular outcome measures) at the first mention in the Introduction section of the article, regardless of the fact that they have already been mentioned in the Abstract (this applies to all abbreviations on their first mention in the manuscript)
3. Tables – please, make sure that all the abbreviations used in each Table are explained in the respective table legend
4. Line 47 – “especially those in the middle-aged and elderly population” – this might even be redundant?
5. Line 141 – Any disagreement was (instead of “shall be”).
no comment
no comment
no comment
The way the brackets are arranged in the text sent appears to be slightly inconsistent. Typically, brackets are employed to surround citations or to add details inside of sentences. But it seems like the brackets are positioned erratically in the text submitted.
A brief explanation of why CET and RT are not recommended as first-choice exercises should be considered (including line 32).
It remains speculative in lines 66-67, that Expending at least 1000 kcal of energy through exercise per week can reduce CVD mortality by 20%, while the statement suggests a potential association between a specific exercise regimen and reduced CVD mortality, it lacks sufficient evidence and robust research studies to validate this assertion. Please explain why you used one reference.
In line 131, had "an" intervention duration.
Add an article in line 155 (with f3 domains judged as an unclear risk)
In the literature selection 3.1., it should be mentioned that 168 full-text articles are assessed for eligibility as indicated in Figure 1.
Add an article in line 207 (studies showed a low risk of selective reporting).
Although the research position is made clear, there is no assessment of the strategy's specificity or sensitivity. Including details on the validation or piloting process of the search strategy could improve the study's consistency.
Ultimately, the procedure for gathering the data was methodical and stringent, abiding by the standards and procedures that have been set forth for performing systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The manuscript's methods appear to be thorough and structured, which renders them reproducible to other researchers. The study's methodological robustness is enhanced by the application of well-established guidelines, exacting search approaches, open-ended selection criteria, and comprehensive data synthesis and analysis methodologies.
The information that forms the basis of the conclusions is supplied or made accessible in a reputable discipline-specific repository. The information is controlled, reliable, and sound statistically.
No comment
In line 124, the authors included the study if " (1) it involved postmenopausal or elderly
female participants but again excluded the study (in line 129) if the study " (3) did not involve postmenopausal women." Then why do studies involving the elderly nonmenopausal females were selected?
In line 129, "(2) were non-RCTs" is only the opposite of "(5) it encompassed all English-language RCTs published from 2000 to December 2023" and in line 131, "(6) had intervention duration of less than 6 weeks is opposite to "(4) the experimental group underwent structured exercise training for more than 6 weeks". Please keep only the inclusion criteria for these points.
Please add a forest plot.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.