LAUSR

Gland Surg 2022;11(8):1433-1434 | https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/gs-2022-02 Here is a response to the letter ‘Is enhanced recovery after surgery protocol has high value in after laparoscopic myomectomy?’ (1). First, we would like to thank readers for their interests in our article (2). We believe they are very professional peer reviewers and gave us very pertinent advice. For the search strategies, we selected only 3 English databases as PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and 2 Chinese databases CNKI (China), Wanfang data (China) for the literature. However, we used Google Scholar for further search about the topic. We believed that would cover most of the relative articles. We also found that there are great proportion of overlap in relate to the result of CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP searching, so we only choose the 2 of the 4 databases and CBM & VIP not included in the database list. We believed no need to include any extra database for the topic. Also, we used a free key word mode for the search process, and the key words has been provided in the text. For the high heterogeneity issue, we would like to perform subgroup analysis or meta regression to further discovery for the source of the heterogeneity. However, not all the articles reported detailed information about the patient’s age, country, etc. Also, we included very small number of articles for each outcome indicators, that’s one of the limitations for this study. In the end, we used only descriptive language to discuss the source of the heterogeneity. For the sensitivity of the study, we did discuss it in the “Heterogeneity survey and sensitivity analysis” section by eliminating the included articles one-by-one. For the publication bias, a funnel plot could not precisely reveal all of it, so we also did the Egger’s test to quantitatively analyse the publication bias. Please check it in the “Publication bias analysis” section and Fig. 9.