Dear editor

We express our profound gratitude for the insightful feedback provided by our peers following the publication of our article. We also appreciate the opportunity to respond to these comments. Our responses are outlined as follows:

1. Concerning the initial inquiry, we utilized the standard flowchart template available on the PRISMA website¹ to construct Figure 1 in our paper, which depicts the literature screening process. We erroneously assumed that the structure of this flowchart was immutable Consequently, we adhered strictly to the template’s structure in our current study. However, the template was relatively simplistic and inadequate for capturing the complexity of our literature screening process. This reliance on the template resulted in an incomplete representation of the literature screening process in Figure 1 of our paper. Conversely, due to variations in cultural backgrounds and linguistic environments, misunderstandings arose concerning the terminology and logic architecture used in the flowchart template. The aforementioned reasons contributed to the issue previously discussed.

We have meticulously re-evaluated the literature screening process. Importantly, this issue does not affect the final inclusion of the literature nor does it impact the overall research findings of our study. To enhance clarity, we have developed a more detailed and comprehensive flowchart for your review. Details are as follows:

Figure 1 Literature screening process.

2. With respect to the second inquiry, we express our gratitude for your feedback. Due to constraints in time and human resources, we were unable to conduct further subgroup analyses. We are committed to addressing this in future work and hope to have the opportunity to publish our findings again.