COMMENT & RESPONSEIn Reply In response to Dr Xu and colleagues, we performed additional analyses to examine the difference in clinical benefit of RAS blockers between Black and White patients (Table ). The results were nearly identical to the findings in our main analysis comparing Black and non-Black patients, suggesting the heterogeneity across these patient groups was not substantial, as Xu and colleagues had expected. 1 In terms of the GRADE framework, we evaluated each of the 8 domains of the quality of evidence before reaching an overall quality rating for each outcome. 2 Only imprecision was noted for all outcomes in Black patients and thus commented as requested by the GRADE guidelines. The outcomes we rated included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, first hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and total HF hospitalizations, which are critical to decision-making for patients with heart failure and have served as major end points in clinical trials in this population. This is in accordance with the GRADE guidelines. 3 We agree with Xu and colleagues that it may be inappropriate to examine publication bias when the number of studies are fewer than 10, and we acknowledged that limitation in the Methods section.Xu and colleagues may also have missed that we reported the absolute risk reduction (ie, difference in event rate between randomized treatment) and relative risk reduction (ie, hazard ratios or rate ratios for RAS blockers vs placebo) in Table 3, and elaborated on these in the Results section, as well as in the abstract.Xu and colleagues suggest assessing the reliability of subgroup effects with the ICEMAN tool. 4 However, the core questions, the response options, and the threshold values for each option of the ICEMAN ratings remain controversial, even according to the ICEMAN tool developers, and the validity and performance of this tool need to be examined. Moreover, there certainly was a prespecified hypothesis for effect modification, as described in our article and discussed extensively in the medical literature for the past 3 decades. We believe our study methodology was robust and the reporting was transparent.