The article is good and the authors did a great job in collecting the dates and comparing theme. The abstract matches the rest of the article. The aim is stated clear. The title is informative and relevant. The background is clear about bioresorbable scaffolds(BRS), although it could have given more information about everolimus-eluting stents(EES). The research question is clearly outlined. The​ ​process​ ​of​ ​subject​ ​selection​ is ​clear.The​ ​variables​ ​are defined​ ​and​ ​measured​ ​appropriately, but in the eligibility criteria, the authors takes in consideration only patients treated with BRS, why not patients treated with EES also?(in the method section, second paragraph, first phrase: letter c and letter f from the selection of studies). The​ ​study​ ​methods​ are ​valid​ ​and​ ​reliable. Aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​methods​ that ​are​ ​clear: data abstraction, validity assessment and analysis, search strategy and study selection. Aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​methods​ that ​are​ ​unclear: Statistical analysis (kindly please take in consideration and note that I am not an expert in statistical references and ranges). There ​are ​ ​questions​ ​that​ ​remain​ ​unanswered​ ​after​ ​reading​ ​through​ ​the​ ​methods: why did the author consider eligible studies with follow-up length of 2 years? why not more or less? why the cut-off of 2 years follow-up? Summary of ​the​ ​main​ ​findings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​paper :From a total of 5 eligible studies, 5219 patients were included . At 2 years, EES prove to be superior to BRS when compared :target lesion failure, device thrombosis, and the incidence of both early and very-late device thrombosis. This​ ​matches​ ​the​ ​summary​ ​of​ ​the​ ​results​ ​in​ ​the​ ​abstract. The​ ​data​ ​presented is​ ​in​ ​an​ ​appropriate​ ​way: tables​ ​and​ ​figures​ ​relevant​ ​and​ ​clearly​ ​presented; appropriate​ ​units,​ ​rounding,​ ​and​ ​number​ ​of​ ​decimals; titles,​ ​columns,​ ​and​ ​rows​ ​labelled​ ​correctly​ ​and​ ​clearly; categories​ ​grouped​ ​appropriately. The text​ ​add​ ​to​ ​the​ ​data​ ​presented​ ​in​ ​the​ ​tables​ ​and​ ​figures​.The ​result statistically​​ significant is clear.Aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​results that​ ​are​ ​clear: search results, study characteristics, meta-analysis results( EES are superior to BRS when compared :target lesion failure, device thrombosis, and the incidence of both early and very-late device thrombosis).There are no aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​results that ​ ​are​ ​unclear.There​ are no ​questions​ ​that​ ​remain​ ​unanswered​ ​after​ ​reading​ ​through​ ​the​ ​results.Titles, columns and rows are labelled correctly and clearly. The categories are grouped appropriately. The text adds to the data. The conclusions answers the aim of the study and they are supported by references and results. The limitations of the study (as stated by the author also) are opportunities to inform future research. The references are relevant, recent, referenced correctly and include appropriate key studies. Overall, the study design is appropriate to answer the aim. I did not spot major flaws of this article. I consider it consistent within itself. This is a 5-trial meta-analysis that wants to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds(BRS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) at long-term follow-up in patients with coronary artery disease. Authors made a great job collecting the dates and comparing through all studies. The pooled analysis of 5219 patients revealed that BRS was associated with higher rates of DvT compared with EES (2.3% vs 0.7%; p<0.001), and have poorer outcomes compared to EES.