LAUSR

1. Definitely, the meta-analysis was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. And we admit that the flow diagram and the mentioned textbox in the flow diagram were not rigorous enough. Thanks for your reminder. 2. Our meta-analysis outcomes may not be generalizable as the limited sample sizes and population groups. Further researches in different ethnic and population groups are necessary to provide more evidence and confirm the potential association. 3. The details of the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for each included study are summarized in Table 1. 4. This meta-analysis adopted a leave-one-out analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of our study and the overall statistical significance did not reverse when any single study including Yueng et al.’s study [2] was removed. 5. The publication bias test was performed through Begg’s test (P = 0.734) and Egg’s test (P = 0.592) in the overall populations and the results showed no significant publication bias in our meta-analysis.