General adults

Ashor et al. (2015) [17]

AT, RT, and CT ↑ FMD; RT frequency and AT intensity (+) associated with FMD

4 (median Jadad Scale)

AT: 2.79a [2.12, 3.45]

RT: 2.52a [1.11, 3.93]

CT: 2.08a [0.70, 3.44]

AT: 88%

RT: 91.6%

CT: 86%

Ashton et al. (2020) [25]

RT safe and effective for ↑ FMD

Low (GRADE)

1.69b [0.97, 2.31]

0%

Campbell et al. (2019) [20]

Exercise training associated with increase in BA diameter at baseline

Good (NHLBI)

0.707a [− 0.68, 2.10]

47.4%

Early et al. (2017) [18]

Exercise training ↑ BA FMD

2 (mean Jadad Score)

31–60 years: 10.68a [7.11, 14.24]

≥ 60 years: 9.17a [2.84, 15.49]

NR

Silva et al. (2021) [36]

RT ↑ BA FMD; dynamic and isometric RT had similar effects

10/15 (TESTEX Score)

RT vs control: 2.39b [1.65, 3.14]

Dynamic RT vs control: 2.12b [1.26, 2.98]

Isometric handgrip: 3.32b [1.68, 4.96]

NR

Zhang et al. (2021) [37]

Low-moderate RT is more effective at ↑ BA FMD than high-intensity

NR

1.02b [0.60, 1.43]

61%

Horiuchi et al. (2012) [38]

BFR impact on FMD is controversial due to variety of methodologies used

NR

–

–

Pereira-Neto et al. (2021) [40]

BFR may have a positive effect on endothelial function

9.5/15 (Median TESTEX Score)

–

–

Witkowski et al. (2018) [39]

Effect of exercise on FMD differs according to menopausal stage and CVD risk burden

NR

–

–

T2DM

Lee et al. (2018) [24]

Exercise training ↑ BA; low-moderate intensity training ↑ BA FMD more than moderate to high intensity subgroups

Moderate (GRADE)

0.41c [0.21, 0.62]

12%

Montero et al. (2013) [52]

Exercise training ↑ BA FMD

5.8/10 (PEDro)

2.23b [1.14, 3.32]

41%

Qiu et al. (2018) [41]

AT or CT ↑ BA FMD

NR

AT vs control: 1.21a [0.23, 2.19]

RT vs control: 1.77a [0.94, 2.59]

HIIT vs MPA: 4.79a [− 2.90, 12.49]

35%

Way et al. (2016) [21]

AT does not impact on FMD

NR

0.40b [− 0.05, 0.84]

41%

Dos Santos Arujo et al. (2019) [42]

RT and CT ↑ BA FMD

NR

–

–

CV conditions

Brockow et al. (2011) [43]

Exercise ↑ FMD

NR

AT vs control: 2.14a [1.12, 3.16]

CT vs control: 2.56a [1.76, 3.37]

AT vs control: 0%

CT vs control: 19.9%

de Souza et al. (2020) [22]

AT and HIIT does not impact FMD

Very low (GRADE)

− 0.04b [− 0.20, 0.11]

80%

Parmenter et al. (2015) [55]

FMD unchanged following exercise training

6/11 (modified PEDro scale)

0.01b [− 0.23, 0.24]

75%

Pearson et al. (2017) [44]

AT ↑ FMD

9/15 (TESTEX Score)

MPA vs control: 1.00b [0.19, 1.80]

VPA vs control: 1.21b [0.60, 1.82]

HIIT vs control: 1.80b [0.69, 4.29]

MPA vs control: 84%

VPA vs control: 72%

HIIT vs control: 93%

Pearson et al. (2017) [45]

Exercise training ↑ FMD

9/15 (TESTEX Score)

1.11b [0.65, 1.56]

77%

Pedralli et al. (2018) [53]

AT ↑ FMD

≥ 8 (PEDro scale)

1.45a [− 0.01, 3.00]

70%

Ramos et al. (2015) [19]

HIIT more effective at ↑ FMD than MICT

7.29/10 (PEDro scale)

2.26b [0.92, 3.59]

68%

Fecchio et al. (2021)[46]

Dynamic RT at ↑ FMD

NR

–

–

Kolmos et al. (2016) [73]

HIIT ↑ FMD

NR

–

–

Vuckovic et al. (2013) [48]

AT, RT, and CT for 4–16 weeks ↑ FMD

NR

–

–

Waclawovsky et al. (2021) [49]

Moderate AT and vigorous interval AT ↑ FMD

6.43 (PEDro scale)

–

–

Other

Beaudry et al. (2018) [50]

Exercise training ↑ FMD

NR

1.28a [0.22, 2.34]

23.2%

Peçanha et al. (2021) [51]

Exercise training ↑ BA FMD

Low

0.94b [0.56, 1.32]

0%