According to a commentary, “the current article raises an interesting question regarding scientific theory: the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was ‘generally good’ but the individual studies included ‘lacked quality.’ It discusses how this affects precision and confidence (two very relevant factors in assessing the quality of meta-analyses) of this current meta-analysis. It highlights that “following the principles of evidence-based medicine, methodologically sound clinical trials should guide clinicians in treatment decisions. To this end, the clinician must be able to tell whether the individual patient in question fits within the population studied in a clinical trial. This is considerably easier from well-controlled single studies, where in- and exclusion criteria are adequately described, than in large-scale meta-analyses that provide a general view of a treatment’s effectiveness, often at the loss of clinical detail. Therefore, in the best of all worlds, clinicians should use information from both of these sources and take their pros and cons into account without valuing one over the other.”