Response to: “methodological concerns in the comparative evaluation of PORTs and PICCs: limitations of indirect evidence synthesis in a recent meta-analysis”

Dear Editor, We thank the authors of the Letter for their engagement with our systematic review and meta-analysis[1], and for recognizing the clinical relevance of integrating clinical and economic outcomes in the comparison between PORTs and PICCs. However, a careful reading of the Letter reveals that its core argument rests on a substantial misrepresentation of our paper: every methodological concern it raises was explicitly identified, discussed, and contextualized within the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections of our published article. We address each point in turn, and draw attention to several additional concerns regarding the Letter itself.