We read the recent published paper in this journal of Translational Andrology and Urology by Chen and colleagues entitled “Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis” (1). They carried out a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy combined with negative pressure suction treating renal calculi. We appreciate Chen et al. for the valuable study, however, after a careful learning of the literature, several limitations should be noticed.First, in the results section of the abstract, the authors depicted that there was not statistical difference in terms of the occurrence of septic shock between the test and control groups. However, in the discussion section of the abstract, it was showed that percutaneous nephrolithotomy reduced septic shock compared to the control group without negative pressure, which was not consistent with the description in the results section.Second, in the outcome indicators section of the study, the authors mentioned the different letter spacing was considered as the primary outcome indicator. However, it was not reported in the results. Therefore, we think that the irrelevant outcome indicator mentioned would lead to misunderstanding.The article’s supplementary files as