The second key point is that in order to optimize clinical potency, relevance of interventions, and the implementation potential of interventions, much more research is required. For example, cost analyses for almost all of the included interventions are woefully missing, yet an economic perspective could guide implementation considerations. Additionally, as Brodaty and Arasaratnam indicate, “fine-grained questions” concerning dosing, start and stop rules, and which interventions and their components are most effective for improving which behavioral symptoms need greater clarification. It is difficult to discern whether any one intervention is more effective than another and which intervention works best for which service setting, specific behavior, disease stage, or caregiver and patient profile. How is a clinician to choose which intervention to invest in and learn to use? At this stage of the evidence and until clarity, decision rules, and more precision are achieved, it may be preferable to consider all of these interventions as part of a tool kit for addressing behavioral symptoms. Clinicians may want to pick and choose the interventions showcased in the meta-analysis based on the specific family needs they encounter and their context of care delivery, such as the available professional and financial resources for delivering any one intervention.