We thank Bignami et al.  for their insightful letter and their kind remarks regarding our recent publication. We fully concur that the challenge of refining search terms to enhance the specificity and breadth of literature searches is a genuine concern. This is fundamental in ensuring the capture of a wide array of relevant studies and reflects a critical aspect of conducting comprehensive research.

Their concerns regarding data quality cannot be overstated. There is an absolute necessity for unambiguous methodologies to ensure and verify data integrity, and to serve as a critical consideration for reviewing papers across all clinical disciplines. Evaluating data quality involves a thorough assessment of the complexities inherent in data verification protocols, the rigor of these processes, and their influence on research findings. This evaluation may extend to analyzing published protocols or directly engaging with research entities for comprehensive details. Despite standardization efforts, variability in protocol implementation can arise due to factors such as human error, resource constraints, and organizational differences, further complicating comparisons across studies.

A practical approach could involve working toward a consensus on research guidelines and data quality, similar to that cited, drawing upon qualitative studies and consensus-building efforts. This consensus would outline current challenges as well gaps in the literature, aiming to enhance research protocols and achieving higher standards of research excellence.