It is methodologically incorrect to designate a review as a "meta-analysis" in the absence of statistical synthesis. The term "meta-analysis" explicitly requires the statistical integration of quantitative data from multiple primary studies to generate a pooled summary estimate. A review lacking this fundamental component—statistical aggregation, does not fulfill the core criterion of a meta-analysis and should not be labeled as such.

Accurate classification is essential for methodological clarity. A review following systematic protocols for search, selection, and appraisal should be termed a "Systematic Review" (SR). If meta-analysis was intended but deemed inappropriate due to heterogeneity or insufficient data, "Systematic Review without Meta-Analysis" (SR without MA) is precise. For reviews focused on mapping evidence scope or identifying research gaps without quantitative synthesis, "Scoping Review" or "Mapping Review" is suitable. The phrase "meta-analysis review" is redundant and misleading, as meta-analysis inherently denotes a synthesis method within systematic reviews.

Precise methodological terminology in titles and abstracts is critical for scholarly integrity. It ensures clarity, enables accurate database indexing, prevents misinterpretation of evidence strength, and supports reproducibility. Mislabeling a systematic review as a meta-analysis overstates the synthesis rigor and misleads readers regarding conclusions. Adherence to established guidelines (e.g., Cochrane, PRISMA) and correct use of terminology are non-negotiable for maintaining trust in evidence synthesis.

Precise terminology remains essential for rigorous evidence synthesis. We welcome further discussion and collaboration.

I agree with Jiale above. What you describe sounds more like a narrative review of the literature which might have been obtained in a systematic way.

It is not appropriate to use the term meta analysis in a review that does not include statistical analysis. Meta analysis involves using statistical methods to combine results from multiple studies. In the first stage, in the first stage summary statistics from each study are calculated. In the second stage, the summary statistics from each study are combined together to give an overall results.

A lot of emphasis is laid on the research methodology in academic research but in essence, the accuracy, clarity and reliability of the entire research and study begins with the topic. A topic mismatched with the methodology is not only misleading but should be considered an ethical concern considering the foundation of trust and integrity on which academic research is built. Meta- Analysis literally means Higher, Advanced or Overarching Statistical analysis. If no or little statistical analysis is done, then the topic is misleading and so is the entire study.

That happens often, especially in journals that pay more attention to APCs than to the peer review process.