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.
The authors have addressed the issues/concerns in the manuscript. I recommend the manuscript for publication. Thanks,
Comments adequately addressed
No comments; previous comments fully addressed
Comments fully adressed
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The results of the risk of bias, forest plot, funnel plot, and data extraction table are mentioned as available in the appendix, but I cannot find them in the supplementary file provided.
No comments.
No comments.
I have a query regarding the inclusion criteria for the population, which states adults aged 18 years and older. The physiology of individuals aged 65 years and above changes. Considering these age-related physiological changes, how do you generalize the findings of your review? I would suggest that a subgroup analysis based on age would provide us with more clarity and generalizability.
Line 35: The authors should specify which guideline or technique was used to assess the risk of bias.
Lines 37–40: The results related to flow-mediated dilation (FMD) are missing the unit of measurement. Please provide the appropriate unit, especially since the outcomes are reported as mean differences.
Lines 82–83: The transition from introducing FMD to discussing exercise, diet, and other interventions lacks clarity. Before focusing on exercise, it would be more logical to first discuss other approaches used to assess or improve FMD, such as statin therapy, particularly in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Please consider citing and discussing the following studies: DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032313; DOI:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.01.031
Highlight the limitations of these approaches to justify the focus on exercise as the intervention of interest.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
Line 119: Ensure that the reference is placed before the full stop.
Lines 140 and 145: Similarly, references should be placed before the full stop.
Line 135: Please provide a reference supporting the PICOS criteria you adopted.
Line 146: Define all acronyms (ACE, AIE, RE, MBE, and CE), as this is the first time they appear in the main text.
Line 153: Define RCT in full as "Randomized Controlled Trial" at first mention.
Line 176: Insert the reference before the full stop.
Lines 185–186: The formula used to estimate the change in standard deviation is unclear. It would be helpful to include the correlation matrix that was used in the calculation.
The study is registered with PROSRERO which is well commendable, as this allows transparency
The control group is not clearly defined. Please specify the exact control condition used in your study.
Line 191: Evaluating publication bias using only statistical tests, such as Egger’s test, may be insufficient for drawing robust conclusions. It is recommended to also include a funnel plot for visual inspection. Therefore, lines 212–213 should be integrated with the content in line 191 to improve the flow and clarity of this section.
Line 191: Evaluating publication bias using only statistical tests, such as Egger’s test, may be insufficient for drawing robust conclusions. It is recommended to also include a funnel plot for visual inspection. Therefore, lines 212–213 should be integrated with the content in line 191 to improve the flow and clarity of this section. Currently, it is not clear the value of r that was used in the calculation of SD.
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.