Abstract:Dear Editor, The letter written by Tian M et al. has demonstrated their interest in our systematic review concerning syndesmotic internal fixation. They have also raised four questions which aim to improve the completeness and accuracy of the results. We are sincerely thankful for their attention paid to our work and would like to reply to the questions one by one. The author mentioned that the retrieval strategy was not complete in our study. Actually, the entire strategy was presented in our initial manuscript and the reviewers recommended that we delete it due to its limited value for the readers. The retrieval was performed using the OVID search engine and was shown in Table 1. Furthermore, we sincerely apologise for uploading a wrong diagram (Fig. 1) in our systematic review [1] which was inconsistent with the description in the first paragraph of the “Results” section. The correct one is presented below in this reply (Fig. 1). We can also provide details of our search and study selection process. Table 1 Database search strategy and results Fig. 1 Flow chart representing study selection Currently, even in the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines [2], there is no specific standard for the sample size of the included studies in meta-analysis. We excluded the studies with subject number less than 20 since our sample size calculations showed these studies would bring some bias. For the functional score, a study with subjects less than 20 could hardly detect a clinically significant difference less than 30 % (α = 0.05; β = 0.8; SD = 24; the statistical parameters were consistent with Pakarinen et al. [3]). Moreover, the determination of this sample size criterion also took into account the relatively low incidence of syndesmotic injuries [3]. Therefore, such exclusion criteria would be appropriate for the current level of the tibiofibular syndesmotic studies. The methodological quality assessment was also presented in our initially submitted manuscript. It was also suggested by the reviewers that we omit it for the same reason as the retrieval strategy. Among the final included studies, the randomised and quasi-randomised studies were assessed by the 12-item scale which was first introduced by Cochrane Collaboration [4] (available on http://www.cochrane.org). The scores for each item were rated from 0 to 2 and thus, the overall full score was 24. All results are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Quality assessment results of RCTs and quasi-randomised studies Tian et al. correctly pointed out the choice of effect model when conducting the analysis. We only found the analysis of “TFCS” (I2 = 66 %) in comparison 1 (absorbable implants or metallic screws), “time to full weight bearing” (I2 = 97 %) and “TFO” (I2 = 82 %) in comparison 3 (suture-button fixation versus syndesmotic screw) had significant heterogeneity. Only the “time to full weight bearing” in comparison 3 became non-significant between the two groups (P = 0.12; effect size: −3.05 [−6.87, 0.77]) when changing the effect model to random, and this result alteration had little impact on our final conclusion. However, the suggestions proposed by Tian et al. are still critical for quality improvement of our results and even for the entire study.

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Guoping Liao Et Al. Concerning “comparison of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Meta-Analysis” by W. Ding Et Al. (2014) Eur Spine J 23(2):395–403

Comparative study of oblique lateral approach and posterior fusion in the treatment of grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis

Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis

Both Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation Are Effective for Lumbar Spinal Fusion—a Meta-Analysis-based Systematic Review

Comparison of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation in Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: a Meta-Analysis

[Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MIS-TLIF): a Meta analysis].

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Application and potential problem analysis of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar interbody fusion

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Meta-Analysis of Complication and Fusion Rate.

Comparative study of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disorders

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation In Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Monocentric Study Of 215 Patients With A Minimum Of 4-Year Follow-Up

Minimally Invasive Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Reply to Letter Regarding Article by Wang Et Al: "internal Fixation of Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Injuries: a Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis".

Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Surgical Procedures in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Vitro

Biomechanical evaluation and optimal design of a pedicle screw with double bent rods internal fixation system based on PE-PLIF fusion

Analysis of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Strategies of Its Microsurgical Reconstruction

Comparative Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation and Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes in unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective analysis of three surgical approaches

[Biomechanical Stability of Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation on Cadaveric Model Simulated Two-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion].