| 1. Cornelissen and Smart, 2013 (12) | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 5 223 adults (1 401 exercise;1822 control) from 93 RCTs | Endurance, dynamic resistance, combined endurance & resistance, isometric resistance training | Control groups (no exercise) | ≥ 4 weeks | SBP and DBP | Isometric resistance training led to the largest SBP reduction (-10.9 mmHg) compared to endurance (-3.5 mmHg) and dynamic resistance (-1.8 mmHg). DBP reductions were significant across all modalities, with isometric training showing substantial decreases (-6.2 mmHg). | A high number of studies included robust meta-analytic methods. Potential heterogeneity due to varying exercise protocols. |
| 2. Cornelissen et al., 2010 (38) | Randomized crossover study | Sedentary adults ≥ 55 years old | Endurance training at low (33% HR reserve) and high intensity (66% HR reserve) | Sedentary period (no exercise) | Ten weeks per training intensity | SBP, HR, HRV | Both low and high-intensity training significantly reduced SBP similarly. High-intensity training had more pronounced effects on HR but no significant impact on HRV. | Randomized crossover design reduces inter-subject variability. Limited sample size may affect generalizability. |
| 3. Correia et al., 2023 (27) | Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs | 253 hypertensive adults from 14 studies | Strength Training (various protocols) | Control groups (no exercise) | ≥ 8 weeks | SBP, DBP | Significant reductions in SBP and DBP, especially with moderate to vigorous intensity (> 60% 1RM), ≥ 2 times/week, and ≥ 8 weeks duration. | Cochrane methodology enhances reliability. A limited number of studies on isometric training specifically. |
| 4. Decaux et al., 2022 (28) | Randomized sham-controlled study | 30 physically inactive adults (15 males, 15 females) | Isometric exercise training (IET)-Wall squats at 95% peak HR | Sham group (wall squats < 75% peak HR), No-intervention control | Four weeks | Resting and continuous BP, cardiac autonomic modulation HRV | IET significantly decreased SBP, DBP, and mean BP compared to sham and control. Improved HRV indicators (↓ LFnu, ↑ HFnu) in the IET group. | Sham-controlled design strengthens causal inferences. A small sample size may limit statistical power. |
| 5. Park et al., 2020 (25) | Pilot study (randomized controlled trial) | 20 obese older men (10 EXP, 10 CON) | Combined exercise: Elastic-band resistance training + aerobic (walking/running, cycling) at 60 - 70% HR max, 3 days/week | Control group (no exercise) | 12 weeks | Body composition, cardiometabolic risk factors, bp, arterial stiffness, physical functions | Significant decreases in body weight, BMI, % body fat, BP, arterial stiffness, LDL-C, and epinephrine. Increases in VO2 peak and grip strength in the EXP group. | A pilot study with a small sample size; results are promising but need replication in larger trials. |
| 6. Pedralli et al., 2020 (21) | Randomized clinical trial | 42 individuals with prehypertension or hypertension (average age 54 ± 11 years) | Aerobic training, RT, combined training | Each exercise modality compared to others | 8 weeks | Endothelial Function FMD, Ambulatory BP SBP, DBP | All three modalities reduced BP and improved FMD similarly. CT showed the greatest improvement in FMD (+6.8%). | Randomized allocation enhances internal validity. Variability in BP response suggests individualized effects. |