Commentary: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a quadricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The study title and methods section state that a random-effects meta-analysis was performed "A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis" to assess procedural success and 30-day mortality. However, a detailed examination of the reported statistical methods and results does not identify a quantitative synthesis consistent with a meta-analysis. The analyses are conducted at the individual-patient level using a one-stage descriptive approach, as mentioned in the methods section "Individual participants' data analysis was used. The analysis approach was a one-stage approach", without study-level effect estimates, variance calculations, measures of heterogeneity (e.g., I²), or graphical meta-analytic outputs such as forest or funnel plots.Although the authors state that a random-effects model was used, the described analytical approach does not reflect a random-effects meta-analysis as conventionally defined. In the absence of pooled estimates derived from multiple studies, the methodology more closely aligns with a descriptive systematic review of case reports rather than a meta-analysis.Referring to the study as a "meta-analysis" may therefore overstate the level of quantitative evidence provided and could mislead readers regarding the strength and generalizability of the findings. Clarification of the analytical framework, or reconsideration of the terminology used in the title and methods, would improve methodological transparency.