“…The number of studies or the percent of heterogeneity did not drive the somewhat higher effect size for high-intensity training effects in NEU (N s = 12, I 2 = 71 %) than HOA (N s =14, I 2 = 49 %). While there have been reviews examining the effects of fitness, acute and chronic bouts of exercise on markers of NP in PwMS, PwPD, and PwST, none did metaanalytically examine interactions among exercise type, exercise intensity, NP domains, and populations (Ada et al, 2006;Calautti and Baron, 2003;Cruickshank et al, 2015;Diechmann et al, 2021;Dorsch et al, 2018;Ferreira et al, 2021;Gamborg et al, 2022;Hvid et al, 2021;Jorgensen et al, 2017;Lin et al, 2021;Ploughman et al, 2015;Ramazzina et al, 2017;Roeder et al, 2015;Ruiz-Gonzalez et al, 2021;Salter et al, 2016;Sandroff et al, 2020;Tablerion et al, 2020;Tillman et al, 2015;Wonsetler and Bowden, 2017). Our results in NEU agree with the general conclusions of these reviews that high-intensity AT is a feasible rehabilitation option for each of the three patient groups with the caveat that potential intensity-related side effects rarely assessed or reported (see limitation 4 in Section 4.4).…”