We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this critical error.We fully acknowledge the concern regarding the data inconsistency in the SUCRA rankings.After carefully re-examining the raw data and analysis process, we confirmed that during the compilation of Table 2, an operational oversight led to the incorrect entry of the SUCRA rank for "Baduanjin" as "20".In reality, the total number of interventions included in the analysis was only 12, and the correct rank should be "8".This basic error indeed compromised the rigor and clarity of the tabular data.There was a lapse in our team's data verification and table review procedures prior to submission.We sincerely apologize for this oversight.
Jing Chen (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: