LAUSR

whether primary outcomes or secondary outcomes had no clinically relevant benefits in the MCID background. Hence, the results of the current review have the potential for producing incorrect and misleading results. Furthermore, the authors only conducted the analysis of publication bias based on only the funnel plot is relatively subjective. Generally speaking, Egger's test is more objective. 4 We suggest authors provide the evidence of publication bias by Egger's test. Relatedly, GRADE classification for all indicators is also lacking. We sup-plemented the quality of evidence for each outcome in Table 1. Finally, there are some minor shortcomings that we would like to point out: (a) The authors did not suffi-ciently follow the PICO format (participants, interven-tion, comparison, and outcomes) to set the standard of inclusion and exclusion criteria. (b) The author did not follow the PRISMA guidelines to conduct the flowchart. (c) The authors mentioned that PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and other online databases were used in this meta- analysis, but they were not enough. It would make the data more convincing if the authors included other databases such as BIOSIS preview and ClinicalTrials. gov. (d) All pooled results are missing specific units (ie, minutes or hours), which makes reading of the already complex manuscript more difficult. We respectfully appreciate that Yu et al. provided us with an important meta- analysis, which provides a guide for clinical decision- making. However, we conclude that the current review draws unreliability conclusions with the potential to exposure the patients to the risk of un-necessary treatment. Hence, the correction of the stated faults may result in potential differences in the conclusions that can be drawn from the present meta- analysis.