This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
We appreciate the thoughtful comments by Lin [
The first comment raised was regarding the use of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design without incorporating propensity score (PS) matching. Kuss et al [
The second comment suggests that we provide descriptive data for both between- and within-group comparisons. In addition, in cases where population characteristics are unknown, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test could have been considered for analysis. In our paper, we presented data for between- and within-group comparisons in Multimedia Appendix 5. We checked the distribution of the outcome variables including yang-deficiency, yin-deficiency, phlegm-stasis body constitution, body energy, and physical and mental component scores; the distribution approximated a normal distribution in our study. According to the central limit theorem, when the sample size of each group is greater than 30, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution of the sample means approaches normality [
The third point raised pertains to the absence of a prespecified subgroup analysis in our study. Owing to the predetermined objectives, hypothesis, and statistical analysis methodology at the initial stages of the study, coupled with the limitation of a small sample size, we did not incorporate a prespecified subgroup analysis. It is suggested that future studies, with an increase in sample size, may consider carrying out such an analysis.
Once again, we appreciate this opportunity to clarify our study. Such dialogues enable the identification and discussion of more aspects of this important issue.
Comparison of the primary and secondary outcomes among the TCM mHealth app, ordinary mHealth app, and control groups (N=121).
propensity score
randomized controlled trial
None declared.