求助，审稿人意见回复（meta论文）

审稿人的意见到底是在说什么，我觉得有点绕，请教一下该怎么回答？

Reviewer #2: My comment about using MOOSE, instead of PRISMA, was not properly addressed. MOOSE is specifically used as a meta-analysis guideline for studies of cross sectional designs where meta-analysis is performed. It was not used in the present study. Why not? PRISMA is for interventions. The purpose of this paper "The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of kinesiophobia in heart disease patients and describe the associated factors with developing kinesiophobia in heart patients." Thus, the association between kinesiophobia and other variables in heart disease patients. There is no intervention. The response from the authors was "The results of the study were mainly kineophobia scores, not epidemiology. Therefore, I mainly used PRISMA instead of the meta-analysis of epidemiological observational studies of MOOSE and epi epidemiology." This does not answer the question. It does not seem to me that the authors understand observational epidemiology studies.

评论者#2：我关于使用驼鹿，而不是PRISMA的评论没有得到正确的处理。驼鹿是专门用作荟萃分析指南的研究横断面设计进行荟萃分析。在本研究中未使用它。何妨PRISMA用于干预。本文的目的是“本研究的目的是调查心脏病患者的运动恐惧症水平，并描述与心脏病患者发生运动恐惧症的相关因素。”因此，在心脏病患者的运动恐惧症和其他变量之间的关系。没有干预措施。作者的回答是“研究的结果主要是运动恐惧症得分，而不是流行病学。”因此，我主要使用PRISMA代替驼鹿和epi流行病学的流行病学观察性研究的荟萃分析。”但这并不能回答这个问题。在我看来，作者似乎并不理解观察性流行病学研究。