The article addresses a clinically relevant question regarding early aspirin discontinuation and ticagrelor monotherapy following percutaneous coronary intervention. The authors have synthesized evidence from four randomized clinical trials, and the findings are potentially useful for understanding the balance between bleeding reduction and ischemic protection. The inclusion of a study-characteristics table, an expanded discussion of clinical heterogeneity, and a supplementary search strategy represents an improvement over the earlier manuscript, as reflected in the published responses to peer reviewers. Nevertheless, several important methodological and reporting concerns remain unresolved and affect confidence in the quantitative synthesis. 1. Major inconsistencies in the forest plots Figure 1 contains significant discrepancies. Panel C, labeled as three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), reproduces the study-level estimates and pooled effect presented in Panel B for major bleeding. Similarly, Panel D, labeled as net adverse clinical events (NACE), reproduces the estimates and statistical results from Panel A for clinically relevant bleeding. These duplicated results are inconsistent with the outcome-specific findings described in the text. The authors should verify the original extraction sheets and statistical outputs, provide corrected forest plots, and determine whether the reported pooled estimates and conclusions require revision. 2. Incorrect total sample size The abstract and Core Tip state that the meta-analysis included more than 20,000 patients. However, the randomized sample sizes of TWILIGHT (7,119), TICO (3,056), T-PASS (2,850), and ULTIMATE-DAPT (3,400) yield a total of 16,425 participants. This discrepancy should be corrected and reconciled with the underlying study-selection and extraction records. 3. Incomplete risk-of-bias assessment A transparent assessment of methodological quality is essential for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The published article and supplementary material do not provide study-level risk-of-bias judgments. This issue had already been identified during peer review, but the available response does not demonstrate that a complete assessment was performed. The authors should provide outcome-specific RoB 2 evaluations and explain how these judgments affect confidence in the pooled findings. 4. Insufficient statistical reproducibility The statistical methods require more comprehensive documentation, particularly the derivation of hazard ratios from reported event counts, the random-effects estimation procedure, and the handling of differences in outcome definitions. This concern is particularly relevant to the T-PASS trial and the pooling of clinically heterogeneous NACE outcomes. An outcome-level data extraction table and reproducible analysis outputs would substantially strengthen transparency. 5. Incomplete systematic-review reporting Although the authors describe independent study screening, the published article does not present a complete PRISMA flow diagram or sufficient numerical details of study identification and exclusion. The review also follows PRISMA 2009 rather than the updated PRISMA 2020 reporting framework. Furthermore, the timing and prospective status of the PROSPERO registration should be clarified, considering the reported registration identifier and the chronology of manuscript submission. 6. Reference accuracy and interpretation Several in-text references do not correspond to the studies discussed. These should be systematically verified. In addition, the absence of a statistically significant difference in ischemic events should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of equivalence or non-inferiority without appropriate statistical justification. The conclusions should distinguish established bleeding benefits from the remaining uncertainty regarding ischemic safety in specific patient populations. Overall assessment The manuscript addresses an important clinical question and incorporates evidence from relevant randomized trials. However, unresolved inconsistencies in the forest plots, incorrect reporting of the total sample size, incomplete risk-of-bias assessment, and insufficient statistical transparency substantially limit confidence in the published synthesis. I recommend that the authors provide the original outcome-level data and analytical outputs for independent verification. The editorial office should assess whether a formal post-publication correction is required and whether the reported conclusions remain supported after verification.