论文修回，审稿人的意见没看太懂，求教各位！ (医学类）

　　论文修回，审稿人的意见没看太懂，求教各位！ (医学类）。一篇荟萃分析修回，意见如下：
This was a well thought out, systematic review of the papers/ research that is available.I think that you targeted the outcomes that would be of most interest when comparing the two methods of surgery.I think it was very important to include exactly how many papers had each particular data point, since for example, the cost outcome was only included in two articles. This brings to the attention of the reader that there is limited data on some of these outcomes. It would have been helpful to have the number of pt that were the denominator for each data point.For example, if a given data point has two of the twelve studies included, it would be helpful to know if the studies were the larger ones or the smaller ones.
Overall, very good review.I appreciate the work that went into this meta-analysis.
审稿人的总体评价好像还不错，但要我说明每个评价数据（效应量）在多少篇纳入研究中被提及了。
但下滑线部分真的没看太懂，请给位达人指点，非常感谢！
===有问必答===
，审稿意见评价不错，问题不大了，他的意思就只有一个，这个审稿人很好玩，一大段都说的一个意思，怕你搞不懂，或许没有其他问题可以提了，就啰嗦了很多，还是让你把每一个效应量的估计表明纳入的文章数，这个好办饿，很简单（2 RCTs；WMD/RR )明白了吧，祝贺下，发的几分？
----

非常感谢你的回复！但文中每个效应量分别有几篇文献提供了有效数据我都说明了，还标注了参考文献。哦，倒是关于手术并发症的部分没有说明，回头补上。 “It would have been helpful to have the number of pt that were the denominator for each data point.For example, if a given data point has two of the twelve studies included, it would be helpful to know if the studies were the larger ones or the smaller ones.”这句没看太懂，" pt "是啥意思。
一个3分的外科。
----

应该是patient 的意思吧，患者个数也要表明，呵呵，3分很不错的，现在不少人已经把这类型作为秘密武器饿，呵呵祝贺下