The pseudoexactness of meta-analysis misapplied to such chaotic data provides an altogether unwarranted assurance of well-founded comparative inference. The authors’ wish to support direct comparisons could be better served by tabulating relevant studies with regard to both outcome and validity issues, e.g., randomization, blindness, and nature of control group. This would provide the correct basis for possible recommendations about direct comparisons. Such old-fashioned literature reviews yield a substantially better understanding than effect size manipulations when the data are so partial, limited, and irrelevant. Such meta-analyses are not second best; rather, they are off the validity scale.